public

WASHINGTON — The idea of requiring new state and local workers to participate in the federal Social Security program, a provision of the new House budget offer, is likely to ignite strong opposition in California, Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Northridge) said Tuesday.

Only a third of the state’s 1.5 million public employees are covered by Social Security and those who are see their pensions reduced by up to $133 a month, according to state figures provided to Fiedler.

Public employees in California already are pressing a legal challenge to a federal law saying they cannot pull out of the system.

The idea of including newly hired state and local workers in Social Security is drawing increasing support on Capitol Hill as Congress looks for new ways to cut the deficit. Already endorsed in the Senate by Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), it would reduce the deficit by $200 million next year.

Dec. 19 (UPI) — Attorneys for former special counsel Jack Smith again asked for a public hearing after he testified behind closed doors about his efforts to prosecute President Donald Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee deposed Smith on Wednesday during a closed hearing that lasted for about nine hours, and his attorneys wrote committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Thursday to ask for a public hearing, CBS News reported.

“Mr. Smith welcomed this opportunity and hopes that it will serve to correct the many mischaracterizations about the work of the Special Counsel’s Office,” said Smith’s attorneys, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer.

“During the investigation of President Trump, Mr. Smith steadfastly followed Justice Department policies, observed all legal requirements and took actions based on the facts and the law,” they wrote in their joint letter to Jordan.

“He stands by his decisions,” they said, adding that an open hearing would enable the public to hear Smith directly and not through third-party accounts, according to Politico.

Koski and Breuer also asked Jordan and the committee to release a full recording of Smith’s deposition, during which he said evidence showed Trump illegally mishandled classified documents and tried to overturn the 2020 election results.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Smith told the committee that he would charge Trump again based on the same evidence if given the chance to do so.

Jordan and other House Republicans accused Smith of “prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional abuses” while investigating Trump on behalf of the Biden administration.

They claim Smith tried to silence the president by manipulating evidence against him and raiding his Mar-A-Lago estate without cause after other federal prosecutors said there was no justification to do so, Axios reported.

Neither the classified documents case nor the alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results case reached the trial stage.

The Visalia Unified School District’s public board meeting in March was a festive and upbeat affair with a performance by a student chamber music group and a commendation for a high school cheer squad.

When the seven-member board went into closed session, the agenda was decidedly grimmer: Six former students were suing the district over sexual abuse they said they suffered decades earlier at the hands of a kindergarten teacher.

Out of public view, the board unanimously approved a $3-million settlement with provisions intended to keep the community in the dark forever.

Under the terms of the agreement, the women, their lawyers and families were prohibited from disclosing any aspect of the deal, including the amount they were paid.

“The Parties agree that they will respond to any inquiries they may receive from any third parties regarding the lawsuit by stating only that ‘the matter has been resolved’ without any further elaboration, discussion or disclosure,” the settlement instructed.

It was Visalia’s fifth secret settlement in the last three years, one of a flurry that districts are quietly approving statewide.

A Times investigation found that California’s public schools, faced with a historic surge of sex abuse lawsuits, are increasingly using nondisclosure agreements and other tactics that celebrities and big corporations rely upon to protect their reputation.

At least 25 districts have resolved suits or other claims in ways that hinder taxpayers from learning about the allegations, the cost of settling them or both, The Times found. These hidden settlements total more than $53 million. Legal experts say that these settlements may be in violation of state law, and that some should be investigated by the state attorney general.

While shielding the names and identifying details of sex abuse victims is widely accepted, courts have repeatedly said the public has a right to know allegations leveled against government employees and the money spent to compensate accusers.

Lawmakers in California have also largely banned the use of confidentiality provisions for settlements involving sexual assault and harassment, on the belief that transparency helps victims heal and leads to public accountability.

“There’s very significant problems with government agencies acting like private companies and requesting or insisting on these kinds of nondisclosure or non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael. “Because at the end of the day, the government works for the people and the people have a very compelling interest in knowing about claims and allegations of misconduct.”

California’s school districts are now grappling with a deluge of sex abuse cases resulting from a 2019 law that changed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and created a new window — from 2020 to 2022 — in which anyone could file a lawsuit for past alleged abuse.

The Times identified more than 1,000 lawsuits against school districts filed since 2020, with more than 750 filed due to the new law. Some lawsuits allege abuse as far back as the 1950s. Most cases are still making their way through the courts, but more than 330 have settled for roughly $700 million, with $435 million paid out for claims related to the new law. The state projects that local education agencies will ultimately pay out between $2 billion and $3 billion once cases work through the court system. Much of this is taking place outside the public eye.

In Visalia, confidentiality clauses negotiated by district lawyers acknowledged the public’s right to obtain the information — and then attempted to make sure they never would. Four agreements specifically barred former students receiving secret payouts from “directly or indirectly” encouraging others to file a request under the state Public Records Act — the method The Times used to review copies of agreements referenced in this story.

A spokesperson for Visalia Unified declined an interview request, and the school district did not answer written questions.

Anaheim Union High School District paid three men, who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher, $3.3 million in 2023.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Several districts attempted to prevent allegations from becoming public by paying off accusers before they filed lawsuits that would have detailed the claims of sex abuse for anyone to see.

Anaheim Union High School District paid a trio of men who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher $3.3 million in 2023 after their attorney sent the district a draft of a lawsuit he said he was prepared to file in Superior Court.

The terms of the payout two years ago required that the men and their lawyers “not seek publicity relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise” to their claims, and indeed, the settlements have not been previously reported.

John Bautista, a spokesperson for Anaheim Union, said in a statement that the district and its insurer settled the draft lawsuits after going through discovery in a related case and “did not want to incur additional expenses of filing a lawsuit.”

“Nothing in the agreement would prevent the claimant/plaintiff from speaking with the press concerning the facts of the case if the press contacted [them],” Bautista said.

At least one district paid an accuser before anything was put in writing, records show. Victor Elementary School District in the High Desert negotiated a $350,000 settlement with one former student after his lawyer relayed abuse allegations in a phone call. Asked by The Times for a document describing the claimed misconduct, a district official said no such records existed.

Some districts suggest the confidentiality restrictions are needed to avoid a “snowball effect” of further litigation.

San Diego Unified, hit by more than a dozen lawsuits over alleged sex abuse since 2020, has settled four for a total of $2.44 million, each with a confidentiality clause that, at a minimum, prevents the accuser or her lawyer from disclosing the settlement amount. One of the settlements blocks the accuser from discussing the matter with anyone except her lawyer or financial advisor or in response to a subpoena.

San Diego officials acknowledged that confidentiality is ultimately limited — the documents can be disclosed via public records requests — but the district proceeded with pursuing restrictions on the accusers and their representatives.

“The purpose is to keep plaintiffs’ lawyers from using these settlements as marketing tools,” said James Canning, a spokesman for San Diego Unified.

Former state Sen. Connie Leyva, seen here while in the Legislature in 2019, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions. “That sounds illegal,” Leyva said.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Efforts to curb the use of secret settlements gained momentum in the 1980s, with growing public awareness of how confidentiality agreements had kept the public in the dark about environmental or health hazards, such as asbestos.

In 2016, California prohibited settlement agreements that block the disclosure of factual information about sexual abuse or any sex offense that could be prosecuted as a felony.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in 2018 passed the STAND Act, which prohibits nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination and other sexual assault cases that don’t rise to felony prosecution. Three years later, the Silenced No More Act widened the prohibition on nondisclosure agreements to include any harassment case. The law still gives victims the option to protect their identity.

The lead sponsor of both bills, former state Sen. Connie Leyva, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions.

“That sounds illegal,” said Leyva, now the executive director of public radio and TV station KVCR. “We did not speak specifically about children or about schools, but it shouldn’t be happening.” She added, “Our bill was meant to apply to everyone everywhere.”

Several settlement agreements obtained by The Times included caveats by stating they were “confidential to the extent allowed by law,” or contained similar carve-outs. Experts said such provisos still have the effect of muzzling a victim’s speech and hindering public accountability.

“While it’s possible that these work-arounds don’t violate the letter of the STAND Act, they certainly violate its spirit,” said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School, who co-authored a study on the effect of the STAND Act in L.A. courts.

Southern Kern Unified School District agreed to pay $600,000 to a former student who alleged sex abuse and included an acknowledgment of the STAND Act in the agreement. Still, the settlement bars the former student, Corey Neufer, from “actively” publicizing the deal.

Reached by phone, Neufer said that although he deliberately chose to sue under his own name, rather than as John Doe, he was told that the confidentiality provision was standard and necessary for the final settlement.

“That was one of the stipulations — that I don’t speak about it or give any details,” said Neufer, who indicated the confidentiality was far broader than the text of his settlement suggests. “My lawyer instructed me to not talk about the case.”

The STAND Act allows for plaintiffs or claimants to put language in a settlement agreement that shields their identity and disclosure of any facts that could lead to their identity. However, if a public official or government agency — such as a school district — is part of the settlement, that language cannot be included.

Of the dozens of settlements reviewed by The Times, two specifically noted that the accuser wanted confidentiality to shield their identity.

Several had restrictions that appeared to exceed the STAND Act, such as a 2024 settlement for $787,500 paid by Ceres Unified to a custodian who said she was sexually harassed by a colleague. The signed agreement states that the settlement, its terms and any belief that the district or its employees engaged in unlawful behavior were all confidential. If asked, the custodian could only say, “The matter has been resolved.”

David Viss, an assistant superintendent at Ceres Unified, said in an email that the agreement complied with the law: “We believe the settlement agreement is consistent with the STAND Act.”

The overwhelming majority of sex abuse cases filed against school districts reach a settlement. For districts, a settlement can be more cost-effective than mounting a legal defense through a jury trial, and unlike a panel of jurors, a settlement provides a level of fiscal certainty. At times, the decision to settle is driven less by school board members than an insurance company or liability coverage provider.

John Manly, whose law firm specializes in childhood sex abuse, said school districts and their insurance providers frequently ask for confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when negotiating a payout.

Lawyer John Manly, seen at his law offices in Irvine in 2023, has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years. He says that confidentiality agreements “benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We get these requests all the time, and we decline,” Manly said. “Confidentiality agreements benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

At Los Angeles Unified School District, scores of people accused former San Fernando High School wrestling coach Terry Gillard of abuse. In 2022, LAUSD agreed to pay 23 accusers a total of $52 million to settle molestation and abuse claims — a settlement negotiated by Manly’s law firm.

A year later, LAUSD agreed to pay three other women who alleged abuse by Gillard a total of $7.5 million.

Although those represented by Manly’s team did not have a confidentiality or non-disparagement agreement in their settlement, LAUSD sought an extensive confidentiality agreement for the payout to the three other women, curtailing discussion of the settlement and underlying abuse claims.

That settlement barred their lawyer from making any sort of statement — or encouraging others to make a statement — about the compensation deal, and barred comments that could “defame, disparage or in any way criticize” LAUSD, its employees and leaders.

Only the women, their lawyer, “immediate family” and “tax professional” could know about the settlement, according to the agreement.

“If asked about the status of this dispute, plaintiffs counsel may only state, ‘they have voluntarily and fully resolved their claims against the Los Angeles Unified School District,’ or words to that effect,” declares the settlement agreement.

The lawyer for the women, Anthony DeMarco, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Manly said the State Bar of California should investigate lawyers on both sides who agree to language that they know conflicts with state law. And he called on Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into such restrictive agreements.

“It’s wrong. It’s bad for the community and it’s bad for the victim. The lawyers that do it — defense and plaintiff — should be ashamed of themselves.”

L.A. Unified, which has added confidentiality provisions in at least seven settlements since 2020, defended its practices as a way to amicably resolve litigation, according to a statement from a spokesperson.

“These settlement agreements keep the settlement details, such as the amount, confidential. They do not prohibit the disclosure of the facts behind the claims,” the LAUSD spokesperson said.

Some legal experts want Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into restrictive nondisclosure agreements.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While several districts use secrecy provisions in settlement agreements to hide the details of sex abuse cases, others, like Visalia Unified, also are able to keep payouts quiet by approving them in closed session at regular school board meetings.

In 2021, the president of the board of Wasco Union High School District received a letter from a lawyer based in Iowa who represented a former Wasco student. The lawyer said his client had been sexually abused nearly a decade earlier by her former coach and teacher, and accused her then-principal, Kevin Tallon, among others, of not taking appropriate steps when confronted with evidence of abuse.

Tallon, now Wasco’s superintendent, was named as a defendant in the draft lawsuit, and the lawyer included a copy. He gave the district 14 business days to respond.

“If I do not hear back from you, I will proceed with the lawsuit,” wrote the lawyer, Thomas Burke.

The letter touched off a negotiation that culminated at the Wasco school board’s final meeting of 2021. The meeting’s agenda for the closed session was circumspect: “Conference with Legal Counsel — Settlement Agreement.” But behind closed doors, the board voted 5 to 0 to approve a settlement, according to meeting minutes, ensuring that there would probably never be a public airing of the allegations against the teacher or superintendent. The meeting minutes reflect only that a settlement was approved — not the amount or nature of the abuse accusations. The district paid $475,000 in the settlement, a sum that The Times obtained via records request.

Tallon, the superintendent who was named in the draft lawsuit, declined an interview but provided written responses to questions. He said the district and its staff “fulfilled its duties diligently and with integrity,” and said the settlement was approved in a way that adhered to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

“The settlement was not intended to conceal allegations; it was meant to responsibly limit risk and bring closure to a sensitive situation,” Tallon said in the statement.

Legal experts agreed that Wasco’s school board complied with the Brown Act — thereby exposing that law’s limits and potential loopholes. Since the threat of litigation did not result in a filed case or formal claim, the board could treat it as “anticipated litigation” and discuss it in closed session, away from the public. And since settlement offers — like any contract negotiation — are not final until agreed upon, they too can be approved in closed session, away from the public.

Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the Brown Act could be amended to proactively require public agencies to ultimately disclose the details and amounts of settlements. School districts, he added, could also opt to be more open, without being compelled to by state lawmakers.

“Agencies owe a duty to the public to be more proactive and more transparent, even than the bare minimum letter of the law might allow them to get away with,” Loy said.

The lack of transparency also coincides with a crisis in local news, which has resulted in far less coverage of city halls, courthouses and school boards from the Imperial Valley to the shores of Eureka.

At one time, newspapers big and small had reporters at school board meetings who probably would have noticed settlements on the agenda and submitted records requests to reveal them.

With local media absent, agencies have quietly approved settlements in closed session, with no watchdog to suss out the underlying facts.

“Diligent people or reporters know to do that: Please give me copies of every settlement approved this week or this month,” said Loy, the First Amendment Coalition’s legal director. “But that requires an extra step.”

ATLANTA — Democrats will not issue a postelection report on their 2024 shellacking after all.

The Democratic National Committee head has decided not to publish a formal assessment of the party’s defeat that returned Donald Trump to power and gave Republicans complete control in Washington.

Ken Martin, a Minnesota party leader who was elected national chair after Trump’s election, ordered a thorough review of what went wrong and what could be done differently, with the intent they would circulate a report as Republicans did after their 2012 election performance. Martin now says the inquiry, which included hundreds of interviews, was complete but that there is no value in a public release of findings that he believes could lead to continued infighting and recriminations before the 2026 midterms when control of Congress will be at stake.

“Does this help us win?” Martin said in a statement Thursday. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”

Martin’s decision, first reported by the New York Times, spares top Democrats from more scrutiny about their campaigns, including former President Biden, who withdrew from the race after announcing his second-term run, and his vice president, Kamala Harris, who became the nominee and lost to Trump.

Keeping the report under wraps also means Martin does not have to take sides in the tug-of-war between moderates and progressives or make assessments about how candidates should handle issues that Trump capitalized on, such as transgender rights.

“We are winning again,” Martin said.

Martin’s announcement follows a successful string of 2025 races, both in special elections and off-year statewide votes, that suggest strong enthusiasm for Democratic candidates.

In November, Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. In New York’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, defeated establishment Democrat-turned-independent Andrew Cuomo.

In U.S. House special elections throughout 2025, Democratic nominees have consistently outperformed the party’s 2024 showing, often by double-digit percentages. Democrats have flipped state legislative districts and some statewide seats around the country, even in Republican-leaning places.

Although the DNC’s report will not be made public, a committee aide said some conclusions will be integrated into the party’s 2026 plans.

For example, the findings reflect a consensus that Democratic candidates did not adequately address voter concerns on public safety and immigration, two topics that Trump hammered in his comeback campaign. They also found that Democrats must overhaul their digital outreach, especially to younger voters, a group where Trump saw key gains over Harris compared with previous elections.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Dec. 12 (UPI) — El Salvador has reached an agreement with artificial intelligence company xAI, founded by Elon Musk, to introduce Grok-based tutoring in more than 5,000 public schools, a move President Nayib Bukele’s government describes as the world’s first fully AI-powered national education program.

The initiative, announced this week by the presidency, aims to provide personalized academic support to more than 1 million elementary and secondary school students. Officials said the rollout will take place gradually over the next two years as part of a plan to modernize the education system.

xAI said the partnership will allow students to access Grok, the company’s conversational AI model, adapted to El Salvador’s national curriculum and designed to provide real-time academic support.

“By bringing Grok to every student in El Salvador, we are putting advanced artificial intelligence in the hands of an entire generation,” the company said in a statement reviewed by La Prensa Gráfica.

El Salvador’s Ministry of Education said teachers will remain central to the learning process and will receive training to integrate the technology into classrooms. The ministry said the goal is to use AI to reinforce instruction, expand access to educational resources and reduce gaps between urban and rural areas.

Bukele described the agreement as part of a strategy to position the country as a global innovation laboratory. Local media reported the government views the initiative as an opportunity to “jump straight to the top” technologically, a phrase attributed to the president in recent announcements.

The ministry said Grok will offer adaptive learning experiences tailored to each student’s pace, while the government and xAI develop audit and security protocols to ensure responsible use of the tool in classrooms.

Authorities have not yet detailed the technical infrastructure required for the nationwide rollout, and questions remain about connectivity and device availability in remote areas.

The agreement deepens political and commercial ties between the Bukele administration and companies linked to Musk. El Salvador has previously worked with Starlink to expand internet coverage in rural areas, according to local reports, a move analysts say aligns with the country’s plans to build a technology-oriented economy.

Education specialists cited by Salvadoran media acknowledged the potential to expand access to digital tools but called for transparency as implementation moves forward.

Teachers’ unions and civil society organizations called for oversight mechanisms to ensure data protection, educator participation and equitable access for all students.

If implemented as announced, El Salvador would become the first country to adopt a national AI-based tutoring system, a model that could draw regional interest as several Latin American governments explore digital learning strategies at varying scales.

The presidency said it will release more details on the pilot phase, timeline and teacher training plans in early 2026.

Dec. 11 (UPI) — Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has made her first public appearance in over a year early Thursday, just hours after winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Machado was greeted by cheering supporters in the streets of Oslo.

A video of the scene was posted to her X account, showing a smiling Machado from the balcony of the Grand Hotel waving to a group of hundreds outside.

Pictures of her greeting and embracing supporters on the street were also published on her X account.

“The hug that all of Venezuela needs,” she wrote in a caption accompanying the photos.

Machado, 58, made the appearance at around 2:30 a.m. local time, The New York Times reported.

Her appearance in the Scandinavian country follows more than a year of her hiding from the regime of Venezuela’s authoritarian president, Nicolas Maduro.

Machado led an opposition movement that many Venezuelans and international observers believe outpolled Maduro in last year’s elections. She won the opposition primary but was barred from appearing on the general election ballot by the Maduro regime, a move widely condemned.

She then backed presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez in the race who is believed by the opposition and many observers to have won the election. Maduro, however, responded by intensifying repression and human rights abuses against political opponents and public dissent, while his government-controlled National Electoral Council declared him the winner.

Her appearance came as she traveled to Oslo to participate in the Nobel Prize Ceremony as she was this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a phone call released by the organization, Machado said she was on her way to Oslo, stating she was grateful for all those who risked their lives to make it happen.

“This is a measure of what this recognition means to the Venezuelan people,” she said, before boarding a plane.

She was unable to reach Oslo in time to receive the award, with her daughter, Ana Corina Sosa, taking the diploma and medal on her mother’s behalf at Oslo’s City Hall.

And she read her mother’s acceptance speech.

“My dear Venezuelans, the world has marveled at what we have achieved. And soon, it will witness one of the most moving sights of our time: our loved ones coming home — and I will stand again on the Simon Bolivar bridge, where I once cried among the thousands who were leaving, and welcome them back into the luminous life that awaits us,” Sosa said on her mother’s behalf.

“Because in the end, our journey towards freedom has always lived inside us. We are returning to ourselves. We are returning home.”

WASHINGTON — Foreigners who are allowed to come to the United States without a visa could soon be required to submit information about their social media, email accounts and extensive family history to the Department of Homeland Security before being approved for travel.

The notice published Wednesday in the Federal Register said Customs and Border Protection is proposing collecting five years worth of social media information from travelers from select countries who do not have to get visas to come to the U.S. The Trump administration has been stepping up monitoring of international travelers and immigrants.

The announcement refers to travelers from more than three dozen countries who take part in the Visa Waiver Program and submit their information to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, which automatically screens them and then approves them for travel to the U.S. Unlike visa applicants, they generally do not have to go into an embassy or consulate for an interview.

The Department of Homeland Security administers the program, which currently allows citizens of roughly 40 mostly European and Asian countries to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for three months without visas.

The announcement also said that CBP would start requesting a list of other information, including telephone numbers the person has used over the last five years or email addresses used over the last decade. Also sought would be metadata from electronically submitted photos, as well as extensive information from the applicant’s family members, including their places of birth and their telephone numbers.

The application that people are now required to fill out to take part in ESTA asks a more limited set of questions such as parents’ names and current email address.

The public has 60 days to comment on the proposed changes before they go into effect, the notice said.

CBP officials did not immediately respond to questions about the new rules.

The announcement did not say what the administration was looking for in the social media accounts or why it was asking for more information.

But the agency said it was complying with an executive order that Republican President Trump signed in January that called for more screening of people coming to the U.S. to prevent the entry of possible national security threats.

Travelers from countries that are not part of the Visa Waiver Program system are already required to submit their social media information, a policy that dates to the first Trump administration. The policy remained during Democratic President Biden’s administration.

But citizens from visa waiver countries were not obligated to do so.

Since January, the Trump administration has stepped up checks of immigrants and travelers, both those trying to enter the U.S. as well as those already in the country. Officials have tightened visa rules by requiring that applicants set all of their social media accounts to public so that they can be more easily scrutinized and checked for what authorities view as potential derogatory information. Refusing to set an account to public can be considered grounds for visa denial, according to guidelines provided by the State Department.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services now considers whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views.

The heightened interest in social media screening has drawn concern from immigration and free speech advocates about what the Trump administration is looking for and whether the measures target people critical of the administration in an infringement of free speech rights.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Opponents of Missouri’s new congressional map submitted thousands of petition signatures Tuesday calling for a statewide referendum on a redistricting plan backed by President Trump as part of his quest to hold on to a slim Republican majority in next year’s elections.

Organizers of the petition drive said they turned in more than 300,000 signatures to the secretary of state’s office — more than the roughly 110,000 needed to suspend the new U.S. House districts from taking effect until a public vote can be held sometime next year.

Referendum votes in Missouri are automatically set for the upcoming November election, unless the General Assembly approves an earlier date during its regular session that begins in January. Missouri’s candidate filing period runs from Feb. 24 through March 31, but districts can still be changed after the deadline, as occurred when the legislature last approved districts in 2022.

The signatures also need to be formally verified by local election authorities and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who has argued the referendum is unconstitutional. But if the signatures hold up, the referendum could create a significant obstacle for Republicans who hope the new districts could help them win a currently Democratic-held seat in the Kansas City area in the November election.

“At the end of the day, these are going to have to get counted, and people are going to vote on this,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians, which sponsored the referendum drive.

Redistricting typically happens once a decade, after each census. But the national political parties are engaged in an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle after Trump urged Republican-led states to reshape House voting districts to their advantage. The Republican president is trying to avert a historical tendency for the incumbent’s party to lose seats in midterm elections.

Each House seat could be crucial, because Democrats need a net gain of just three seats to win control of the chamber and impede Trump’s agenda.

Redistricting is spreading through states

Texas was the first to respond to Trump’s call by passing a new congressional map that could help Republicans win five additional seats. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way last week for the new districts to be used in the 2026 elections.

Republicans could gain one seat each under new maps passed in Missouri and North Carolina and have an improved chance at taking two additional seats under a new Ohio congressional map. In Indiana, senators are considering a proposal this week that also could help Republicans win two additional seats.

Democrats scored a victory in California, where voters in November approved a new Democratic-drawn congressional map that could help the party win five additional seats. Democrats could gain a seat in Utah under new congressional districts imposed by a judge.

But Republicans are challenging both states’ measures in court. And Utah lawmakers are meeting in a special session Tuesday to consider delaying the candidate filing deadline to allow more time for the legal challenge.

Virginia Democrats have also taken a first step toward mid-decade redistricting, with additional votes expected in the new year.

Missouri referendum sparks intense battle

People Not Politicians has raised about $5 million, coming mostly from out-of-state organizations opposed to the new map. National Republican-aligned groups have countered with more than $2 million for a committee supporting the new map.

Republicans have tried to thwart the referendum in numerous ways.

Organizations supporting the Republican redistricting have attempted to pay people up to $30,000 to quit gathering petition signatures, according to a lawsuit filed by Advanced Micro Targeting Inc., a company hired by People Not Politicians.

Hoskins, the secretary of state, contends he cannot legally count about 100,000 petition signatures gathered in the one-month span between legislative passage of the redistricting bill and his approval of the referendum petition’s format, but can only count those gathered after that.

Hoskins also wrote a ballot summary stating the new map “repeals Missouri’s existing gerrymandered congressional plan … and better reflects statewide voting patterns.” That’s the opposite of what referendum backers contend it does, and People Not Politicians is challenging that wording in court.

Meanwhile, Republican Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Hoskins and the General Assembly asserting that congressional redistricting legislation cannot be subject to a referendum. Although a federal judge dismissed that suit Monday, the judge noted that Hoskins has “the power to declare the petition unconstitutional himself,” which would likely trigger a new court case.

Missouri’s restricting effort already has sparked an intense court battle. Lawsuits by opponents challenge the legality of Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe’s special session proclamation, assert that mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed under Missouri’s constitution and claim the new districts run afoul of requirements to be compact, contiguous and equally populated.

It’s been more than a century since Missouri last held a referendum on a congressional redistricting plan. In 1922, the U.S. House districts approved by the Republican-led legislature were defeated by nearly 62% of the statewide vote.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.