A Lynchburg Circuit Court judge said he will issue a ruling Monday in a case that seeks his opinion on how the city should navigate the evolving legal landscape of the statewide referendum on redistricting.
Circuit Judge Patrick Yeatts heard arguments Thursday in the city of Lynchburg’s petition for declaratory judgment and declined to grant a motion to dismiss the case. He said he will reconvene the hearing at 11 a.m. Monday and issue a ruling then, in an effort to avoid a “rash and imprudent” ruling in a case with such high stakes and so many moving pieces.
The window will give Yeatts more time to review the arguments and attorneys more time to submit additional materials, given the expedited timeline of the initial emergency hearing. The suit was filed Wednesday after the city’s Republican-majority council voted to initiate the process Tuesday.
Early voting on the referendum is scheduled to start March 6.
Meanwhile, two appeals are pending in the Virginia Supreme Court related to the redistricting referendum, which would enable Democrats in the General Assembly to redraw congressional lines before November’s midterms with an eye toward knocking out four of the state’s five Republican U.S. House members. The first appeal stems from a January ruling by the Tazewell County Circuit Court that sought to halt the redistricting effort, finding that it ran afoul of the state constitution on procedural grounds. The second stems from another ruling in Tazewell County that specifically told state officials to stop administering or preparing for the referendum.
The petition in Lynchburg “seeks judicial clarification of the City’s and its General Registrar’s legal duties and obligations in administering the April 21, 2026 constitutional referendum” in light of the shifting legal grounds, according to court documents. It also asks the judge for “temporary injunctive relief” in the city — meaning a pause on election preparation and execution.
Tim Anderson, a former Republican state delegate from Virginia Beach who is representing Lynchburg pro bono in the case, said that Yeatts’ extended consideration is a “signal” that he is taking Lynchburg’s request for an injunction seriously.
“I think Judge Yeatts is going to grant that, 100%. Because he would have dismissed it otherwise, or he would have denied it,” Anderson said after the hearing.
During the hearing, Anderson asked Yeatts specifically for an injunction until April 16.
That date is at the center of Anderson’s main argument: that the state constitution requires a 90-day buffer between when the General Assembly passes a ballot question and when that question can be presented to voters. Such a window would set the first day of early voting on April 16, rather than the currently scheduled March 6.
The city of Lynchburg is the sole plaintiff against three defendants: Commissioner of Elections Steven Koski, the state Board of Elections and the state Department of Elections. Dan Pense, the city’s general registrar, is included in the suit as a necessary party.
[Read more: Registrars forge ahead with early voting preparations as redistricting court cases loom.]
Todd Shockley, the senior assistant attorney general who is representing the three defendants, and Aria Branch, an attorney who made a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of the group Virginians for Fair Elections, said during the hearing that the constitutional blackout window refers to Election Day, not to the first day of early voting. April 21, Election Day for the referendum, is more than 90 days after the General Assembly approved it. Voters aren’t forced to go to the polls on March 6 if they don’t feel prepared to make a decision then, they added.
Shockley and Branch asked the judge to deny all of the city’s requests for relief, which include the temporary injunction and four requests for declarations as to how the city and its registrar should act in light of the Tazewell injunction and the state constitution.
They argued throughout the hearing that the Lynchburg registrar is required by state law to run the election; that Lynchburg is not bound by the Tazewell injunction, which targets state officials; that this petition at this time is not an appropriate way to challenge a constitutional amendment; and that disenfranchising Lynchburg’s 58,000 voters is a real risk of pumping the breaks on election preparation and early voting.
Anderson said after the hearing that the rushed and “completely illegal constitutional process of passing this redistricting amendment” has “caused chaos” throughout Virginia, and localities are in the dark without court opinions to guide them.
“The city of Lynchburg doesn’t know what to do, nobody knows what to do. Everybody’s winging it. And we need the courts to step up and tell us what to do. And that’s why we’re here,” he said.
Council member Jacqueline Timmer, who introduced the resolution to start the city’s petition process, agreed.
“I think as a locality — and all localities in Virginia — we’ve found ourselves in a tough position because we’re receiving conflicting constitutional information and statutory information, and guidance and lack of guidance. And so with that it really is within the judicial purview in order for those decisions to be made,” she said after the hearing.
Both Pense and Patricia Jones, the city’s deputy registrar, testified Thursday that they rely on the Department of Elections for many of their operations. That department has stopped preparing for the election, per the Tazewell order. That means it hasn’t approved a new polling place in Lynchburg’s fourth ward, provided up-to-date voter data, or opened the survey that allows the city to certify its accuracy tests of its voting machines — among other tasks needed to conduct an election as normal — Pense and Jones said. With election deadlines looming and state guidance missing, they said, they need clarity from the court as soon as possible.
Jones will take over as registrar on Monday following Pense’s retirement. Pense informed the city’s electoral board of his desire to step down in December.
Council member Marty Misjuns also testified Thursday, speaking to the idea that his oath of office calls him to uphold the state constitution, and that using city funds to execute an election that doesn’t follow constitutional guardrails goes against that oath.
Anderson said he’ll seek answers for Lynchburg in every avenue possible.
“We’re going to the Supreme Court no matter what,” he said after the hearing. “We lose, we win, we’re going to the Supreme Court.”