This page was rebuilt 09/11/2026 12:10 a.m. Central. Every entry also carries when this record learned it.
The documents
Every link below goes to the court or agency that published it. This site does not host copies: the publisher's copy is the authoritative one, and it should stay the one people read.
Documents this record is missing
Named openly, because a gap the reader cannot see is a gap the reader cannot weigh.
- The Cole County judgment itselfNeeded: The written judgment in 26AC-CC00440 entered August 19, 2026.Why: The docket establishes it exists, who it favoured and when, but the docket text breaks off mid-sentence at the declarations, and Case.net does not serve case documents to anonymous users. What the trial court actually held is not known here.
- The contempt papers in SC101805Needed: The emergency motion for contempt (docket 25), the order to show cause (27), the Secretary's response (33) and the suggestions regarding contempt (36).Why: The docket now establishes that each exists and when it was filed. What none of them says is known here, and the argument is set for September 10 at 10:00 a.m.
- Eighth Circuit orders in No. 26-2797Needed: Any order on the motion for summary reversal or stay, any administrative stay, the panel assignment if public, and the court's treatment of 28 U.S.C. 2284.Why: The case number and party alignment are now known. What is not known is what the court will do with the TRO, which is the question that decides which map governs November 3.
- The September 8 directive to local election authoritiesNeeded: Email, memorandum or directive; timestamp; recipients; exact wording; attachments; whether issued before or after notice of appeal; whether later modified.Why: AP reports the Secretary immediately told local officials they were required to use HB 1.
- Signature verification completion records, district by districtNeeded: Required threshold, verified signatures, the date each district crossed threshold, the date final local verification returned, and the dates the Secretary received results.Why: Potentially the best evidence for how much of the late certification timeline involved actual signature verification versus constitutional and legal review.
- The November 25, 2025 federal hearing transcriptNeeded: Transcript from the Bluestone litigation, 4:25-cv-1535-ZMB.Why: Could document what Missouri and the Secretary represented to the federal court about constitutional-review authority, timing, expected procedure, the effect of rejecting the petition, and anticipated state judicial review.
- The December 8, 2025 order of dismissalNeeded: The order PDF from 4:25-cv-1535-ZMB.Why: The Missouri Supreme Court later relied on this history when discussing the Secretary's timing.