For the second time in a little more than three weeks, a Tazewell County judge has issued a ruling that says the April 21 special election for proposed constitutional amendment to allow for the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to redraw congressional district lines is legally invalid.
The first case resulted in a narrow ruling that only applied to Tazewell County. The latest ruling, handed down Thursday, is a more sweeping one that specifically tells state officials to stop “administering, preparing for, taking any action to further the procedure for the referendum or otherwise move forward with causing an election” on the grounds that the legislation behind the redistricting is full of legal problems.
This ruling will be appealed, just as the first one was — so the importance here may not be this specific court order, but the fact that it creates another legal avenue that leads to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The question now becomes a two-parter: What will the court rule — and how quickly will it rule?
Early voting for the special election is set to begin March 6. To prepare for that, registrars are already doing the things they have to do for a special election: getting ballots printed, lining up election workers and so forth.
When Judge Jack Hurley’s first ruling was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, the court set up a schedule for filing briefs that extends beyond the April 21 election date — meaning no ruling would come before votes are cast. The reasons for that may be purely legalistic — although Hurley’s first ruling declared the General Assembly’s actions “void ab initio,” Latin for “void from the beginning,” it never actually said the state couldn’t hold the election. Instead, it simply ordered the Tazewell court clerk to take some procedural actions that would complicate the election.
In response to the appeal on that ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court set up a schedule that was more compressed than usual, but not designed to produce a ruling before the vote — even though it’s clear the Republican plaintiffs will argue that the election is invalid. The court’s schedule wound up putting a cloud over the election — would it really count or not?
This latest ruling comes from a different suit, with different plaintiffs and somewhat different legal arguments. It also seems to demand a more immediate response from the Virginia Supreme Court. Democrats, who want the constitutional power to draw new lines aimed at knocking out four of the state’s five Republican House members, obviously want the election to proceed. Republicans don’t. Voters on both sides, though, ought to know that if there is an election that their votes will count. There’s pressure here on Democrats to get this ruling overturned, or stayed, but perhaps more pressure on the Virginia Supreme Court to rule quickly. It would be a very bad look if the court put itself in a position of potentially ruling after an election that “the will of the people” has to be thrown out. The court could have set up a quicker schedule the first time around to avoid that unsavory outcome but chose not to. Will it do so now?
All this puts the justices in an uncomfortable position: Virginia Supreme Court justices are chosen by the General Assembly, which in reality means the majority party in the General Assembly — currently Democrats. Those justices also are chosen for 12-year terms, not the life terms of U.S. Supreme Court justices. That means some of these justices may have to seek reappointment from a legislature run by a party they ruled against in a high-profile case. It’s understandable that some justices may want to duck this issue, but now they’re not going to be able to: Judge Hurley has seen to that with a broad ruling.
Let’s review these two cases and then look ahead.
The first case was filed by a group of Republican state legislators against Democratic House Speaker Don Scott and the House clerk, Paul Nardo. It was filed in Tazewell because the plaintiffs hoped to find a friendly judge and did — Hurley was a Republican candidate for the House of Delegates in 1999.
This second case was just filed Wednesday by different Republican plaintiffs: the Republican National Committee, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and two Republican House members, Ben Cline of the 6th District and Morgan Griffith of the 9th District. They sued a different set of defendants: state election officials.
The second set of Republican plaintiffs used some of the legal arguments from the first suit but added others.
Those original arguments: The state constitution requires the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment twice before it goes to voters, with an election in between. The General Assembly didn’t pass this amendment the first time until late October 2025, after early voting had begun. Republicans contend that means the amendment didn’t meet the “intervening election” standard; Democrats say the traditional Election Day is all that matters. Republicans also contend Democrats didn’t adhere to the proper schedule for posting notices about the election.
Among the new arguments: Republicans say the language on the ballot is misleading and designed to favor the pro-redistricting side by describing the amendment as a way “to restore fairness in the upcoming elections” when Republicans think the move is very unfair. (See our story on the language.)
The Tazewell judge agreed on all three counts. Hurley noted that his previous ruling had already found “numerous violations” in how the legislature passed the amendment and that the Republicans “have an extraordinarily high likelihood of success” in future hearings. As for the ballot language, Hurley wrote: “It is misleading, in particular the ‘restore fairness’ language because it would lead a voter to believe he or she were doing something unfair by voting against the proposed amendment.”
In a passage likely intended for higher courts, Hurley made a point of distinguishing this case from the earlier one: “This is a different case with different plaintiffs and different defendants concerning a different statute and a different issue.” That seems designed to prevent the Virginia Supreme Court from putting off a resolution of this case while the previous one is decided.
Attorney General Jay Jones said he would “immediately” appeal.
There will be other suits. Indeed, there already are. Two other Republican House members — Rob Wittman in the 1st District and John McGuire in the 5th — filed suit Thursday in Richmond to challenge the ballot language.
The Republican strategy appears to be to file multiple suits in multiple venues. Ultimately, though, they all lead to the same place, the Virginia Supreme Court. In the meantime, early voting is set to start in 11 days. If voters want to know if their votes will count, the court will have to act fast.
Reaction to the judge’s ruling:
Attorney General Jay Jones (D):
“My office will immediately appeal the ruling issued by the Tazewell County Circuit Court. These arguments are already before the Supreme Court of Virginia, the proper forum to consider the arguments, which has set a schedule for receiving arguments and has justifiably allowed the vote to proceed during this time.”
House Speaker Don Scott (D):
“Republicans ran back to the same judge — even though the law requires these cases to be filed in Richmond — in a second attempt to take this issue away from the voters. The Supreme Court of Virginia has already made clear that this matter will go to the voters, but Republicans unhappy with that ruling went back to their friendly judge. I am confident this will be overturned. Voters will decide this referendum.”
Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle (R) and House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore (R):
“Today’s grant of a Temporary Restraining Order by Judge Hurley of the Tazewell Circuit Court is a necessary step to protect Virginia voters from an unlawful and rushed redistricting referendum. The Constitution sets clear rules for how amendments must be advanced. Those rules were not properly followed. When the process is flawed, courts must intervene. Virginians deserve transparency, fairness, and adherence to the law — not backroom maneuvering. We welcome the court’s action and will continue to defend the integrity of the Commonwealth’s Constitution.”
Rep. Ben Cline (R):
“The Democrats’ unfair redistricting scheme is illegal. We are grateful that the court has agreed and swiftly applied justice to stop this unconstitutional power grab that would disenfranchise millions of Virginia voters by reassigning them members of Congress from other parts of the state. This ruling is an important victory in our fight to make sure that politicians don’t get to select their own voters.”
Want more politics and analysis? Sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter that goes out on Fridays. Sign up here: