The Virginia State Board of Elections was slated to issue statewide certification of the results of the mid-decade redistricting referendum on Friday. But the board’s hands are tied from doing so due to a court order from the Tazewell County Circuit Court and a pending ruling from the Supreme Court of Virginia.
“The board is unable to proceed with that item today,” Steve Koski, commissioner of elections in Virginia, told the board regarding the statewide certification of the April 21 referendum. “The State Board of Elections is currently under an injunction that prohibits certification of the results of the election. This matter is currently pending before the Virginia Supreme Court. Once we get a final order from the court, we will act accordingly.”
All localities aside from Tazewell County, which is also bound by the injunction, have certified their election results, Koski said.
Virginia’s new 10-1 congressional map, which favors Democrats, was to go into effect immediately following certification of the election. Instead, Virginians and congressional candidates wait for a ruling from the state’s Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the redistricting effort, which the “yes” side won with a slim 2.9 percentage point margin.
The state’s high court heard arguments on Monday on the commonwealth’s mid-decade redistricting effort, after a January ruling by Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. found the effort to be unconstitutional. Republican state Sens. Bill Stanley of Franklin County and Ryan McDougle of Hanover County, and House of Delegates Minority Leader Terry Kilgore of Scott County were plaintiffs in that case. Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones appealed the Tazewell Circuit Court decision up to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
The April 21 redistricting referendum will be rendered moot if the state’s high court decides to uphold the lower court ruling. If that happens, congressional maps that were used in the 2024 midterm elections will remain in place for the 2026 contest. If the state’s high court overturns the lower court’s ruling, the redistricting referendum is likely to be certified, and the new 10-1 maps favoring Democrats will be used in this year’s midterm elections.
Hurley issued another ruling in favor of Republicans that blocked the State Board of Elections from certifying the outcome of the April 21 referendum the day after it took place.
That ruling is connected to a separate case brought by the Republican National Committee and Republican congressional representatives Ben Cline, of Botetourt County, and Morgan Griffith, of Salem, that also sought to challenge the constitutionality of the mid-decade redistricting effort. Hurley issued his ruling to block the statewide certification of the referendum the day after the election took place.
Jones said on April 22 that his office would immediately appeal the Tazewell ruling to the state Supreme Court, requesting a stay that would have allowed the State Board of Elections to certify the referendum in the meantime. The state’s highest court denied Jones’ request.
A constitutional amendment must pass the General Assembly twice, with an intervening election between those two votes, before it goes to the voters in a referendum.
The General Assembly first passed the constitutional amendment on Oct. 31 by gaveling in the 2024 special session, which had never been adjourned. That Oct. 31 passage took place amid early voting for the 2025 general election. The second passage of the constitutional amendment took place Jan. 19. Both of the General Assembly votes were solidly along party lines.
Supporters of the redistricting referendum argue that the November 2025 election satisfies the “intervening election” requirement because first passage of the constitutional amendment by the General Assembly took place before Election Day. Opponents argue that the election was already underway because early voting had begun on Sept. 19.
Hurley ruled that the process used by General Assembly Democrats to enact the amendment was unconstitutional based on three arguments:
- The 2024 special session was not able to be used for first passage of the constitutional amendment by the General Assembly;
- The 2025 election does not count as an “intervening election” because early voting had already begun before the constitutional amendment was passed by the General Assembly for the first time; and
- A legislative requirement to post the amendment for three months on courthouse grounds was not met.
