The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled 4-3 Friday morning to overturn Virginia’s mid-decade redistricting referendum after finding the effort unconstitutional.
By late Friday afternoon, Attorney General Jay Jones had filed a request for a stay of the ruling with the court, noting that his office intends to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the opinion, written by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, the high court found that the legislative process employed to advance the redistricting referendum violated Article XII, Section 1, of the state constitution. It said that the constitutional violation “incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy.”
The court decision all but guarantees the congressional maps used in the 2024 election will be used in the 2026 midterm election.
Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger said Friday that the majority of Virginians who voted in the April 21 redistricting referendum cast their ballot in favor of redrawing the maps in an effort to “push back” against Republican President Donald Trump. Those voters made their voices heard, she said, and now it’s time to focus on the 2026 midterms.
“I am disappointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s ruling, but my focus as Governor will be on ensuring that all voters have the information necessary to make their voices heard this November in the midterm elections because in those elections we — the voters — will have the final say,” Spanberger said in a statement.
[Read what other political leaders are saying about Friday’s decision.]
Voters approved the redistricting referendum by a 2.9-point margin. Primary contests for the 2026 elections are slated to take place in Virginia on Aug. 4. Early in-person voting is scheduled to start on June 19.
A spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Elections encouraged voters to check their registration status and congressional district at elections.virginia.gov/VoterInformation.
The constitutional amendment process
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 court based its split ruling on whether 45 days of early voting is considered part of the required intervening election.
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. The state Supreme Court concurred with that view on Friday.
“Today’s ruling is well reasoned and in accordance with the constitution of Virginia,” Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, a plaintiff in the case, said in a phone interview. “Today, the Supreme Court spoke for the people of Virginia, to make sure that millions of Virginians were not disenfranchised and their voices silenced. It is a great day for Virginia. … We didn’t do this for political reasons, we did this because it was the right thing to do.”
Stanley added that he does not like the mid-decade congressional redistricting that is taking place in other states, but that he’s glad that the Virginia Supreme Court stood up and said that the commonwealth’s constitution matters.
Virginia Democrats have called the redistricting effort necessary, after Trump called on conservative-led states to change their congressional maps in favor of GOP candidates ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. A number of Republican-led states, including Texas, North Carolina and Missouri, have redrawn their maps in an effort to give Republicans an advantage in picking up seats in the midterm elections. Democratic states, including California, have done the same for their party in response.
Virginia’s congressional map had been redrawn to favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts, which would have allowed the party to pick up four seats. Virginia’s current congressional map has six Democratic representatives and five Republican representatives.
House of Delegates Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, also a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that the ruling upholds Virginia’s constitution.
“The rule of law requires that Virginians have an opportunity to review a Constitutional Amendment before they vote for the House of Delegates in a meaningful way. You cannot violate the Constitution to amend the Constitution,” he said.
House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, who supported the redistricting effort and was a party to the case, said that he respects the decision of the state’s high court but that it doesn’t change what happened at the polls in April.
“Three million people voted in a free and fair election. We gave this decision to the voters — exactly where it belongs — and they spoke loud and clear. They voted YES because they wanted to fight back against the Trump power grab,” he said in a statement. “That truth doesn’t change because of a court ruling. This was always about more than one election — it was about whether the voices of the people matter. And no decision can erase what Virginians made clear at the ballot box.”
Is this the end of the legal battle, ahead of the midterms?
Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones, whose office filed the appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, pledged to keep fighting in a statement on Friday.
The court’s ruling “follows a dangerous trend of tilting power away from the people,” he said, and silences the voices of voters who cast their ballots in favor of the referendum. He added that his office is reviewing the order and is evaluating “every legal pathway forward to defend the will of the people and protect the integrity of Virginia’s elections.”
“Today the Supreme Court of Virginia has chosen to put politics over the rule of law by issuing a ruling that overturns the April 21st special election on redistricting,” he said. “The Republican-led majority of the Supreme Court of Virginia contorted the plain language of the Constitution and Code of Virginia to give it a meaning that was never intended, which allowed them to reach the wrong legal conclusion that fit their political agenda. The consequences of their error are grave.”
While the attorney general’s office is seeking to delay the court’s mandate, noting late Friday that the commonwealth intends to file an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, an election law expert said such an appeal would be a “narrow and difficult” path.
In order for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a state court decision, the case must present a question of federal law, typically the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, said James Alcorn, director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School.
“Here, the Virginia Supreme Court was interpreting a provision of Virginia’s own constitution governing how the General Assembly must pass constitutional amendments. That is squarely within the state court’s authority, and federal courts, including SCOTUS, are generally reluctant to second-guess those interpretations,” he said.
Lawyers for the state may attempt to identify a federal constitutional hook, but that would be an uphill argument given the procedural nature of the ruling, he added.
Even if the U.S Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, a full decision before November would be unlikely.
“The more realistic emergency avenue would be an application to SCOTUS for a stay of the Virginia Supreme Court’s mandate, but that, too, faces a high bar,” Alcorn said.
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the constitutional validity of the redistricting effort on April 28, as Jones’ office appealed an earlier ruling by the Tazewell County Circuit Court that determined the effort to be unconstitutional.
