In a unanimous opinion, the Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment upholding the secretary of state’s certificate of insufficiency in a referendum petition case. The Court held that article III, section 49 subjects any act of the General Assembly to referendum by default, that HB 1’s congressional redistricting is such an act, and that neither the public peace nor the appropriations exception in section 52(a) removes it; the Court also held the secretary cannot satisfy his statutory duty to state the reason for insufficiency by attaching and incorporating an attorney general opinion, and that by omitting timeliness and signature grounds from his certificate he conceded them. Reaffirming its May decision in Maggard, the Court held HB 1 never took effect and the 2022 districts remain in force for the November 2026 election, ordered the secretary to certify the petition as sufficient and place it on the ballot, and enjoined him and anyone acting in concert with him from using HB 1’s districts unless voters approve the measure and it takes effect 30 days later.
