The Lynchburg City Council voted Tuesday night to go to court to seek a judge’s guidance on how to handle a possible statewide referendum on redistricting.
The move comes as a new strategy in an ongoing flurry of court actions against the state’s upcoming redistricting referendum, which had been set for April 21 with early voting starting on March 6.
The resolution orders attorney Tim Anderson, a former Republican state delegate from Virginia Beach, to prepare and file a petition for declaratory judgment in the Lynchburg Circuit Court that seeks “judicial clarification of the City’s and its election officials’ legal duties with respect to the April 21, 2026 referendum and any related statutory or constitutional provisions.”
Anderson is representing the city on a pro bono basis, according to the resolution text.
Last week, Anderson championed a different resolution that would have barred the city’s registrar from administering early voting for the redistricting referendum — in an effort to force attorney general intervention and court action ahead of the election. That resolution was discussed at a specially called meeting Monday and was unanimously voted down by the Lynchburg City Council. Similar resolutions were adopted by Patrick and Spotsylvania counties last week.
The change in Lynchburg’s strategy emerges on the backdrop of an evolving legal landscape for 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. A ruling by the Tazewell County Circuit Court last month sought to halt the redistricting effort, finding that it ran afoul of the state constitution on procedural grounds. Attorney General Jay Jones appealed that ruling to the Virginia Supreme Court.
A second case, also filed in Tazewell County, specifically told state officials last week to stop administering or preparing for the referendum any time before March 18. Jones appealed that ruling, too.
“There’s a lot of confusion about the current actions in Richmond, and there’s a very real-time element of how all of this is developing,” said council member Jacqueline Timmer, who introduced the resolution, at Tuesday’s meeting. Her plan is to ask for answers.
“The resolution that I am putting forward seeks judicial clarity. It is their purview, it is their realm, to decide when the law is incongruent with other components of government, and then from there to interpret it — and for [the city] to respond as a result.”
Timmer’s resolution was approved 5-1, with the city council’s lone Democrat, Sterling Wilder, voting no and council member Chris Faraldi absent.
The petition will seek four declarations from the court:
- A declaration that the Tazewell injunction “directly affects and binds the City of Lynchburg and its General Registrar in their official capacities,” given state agencies’ roles in providing ballots, voting equipment, guidance and general coordination to the city registrar;
- A declaration of whether the city and its registrar are legally required or permitted to proceed with preparations for voting, such as absentee ballot issuance and voting-machine programming, in light of the Tazewell injunction;
- A declaration of the city and its registrar’s duties and obligations under the state constitution, specifically whether deadlines for early voting must yield to a 90-day waiting period outlined in the constitution;
- And a declaration of whether the city may lawfully withhold city-owned facilities, resources or personnel for referendum-related activities pending judicial clarification or resolution of the Tazewell injunction.
The petition will also call for relief in the form of reasonable attorney’s fees and “temporary injunctive relief, if necessary, to preserve the status quo and prevent the City or its officials from taking actions that could violate the Tazewell Temporary Restraining Order or expose them to liability.”