The Supreme Court of Virginia on Monday heard arguments over the constitutional validity of the commonwealth’s mid-decade redistricting effort, and now the state waits on tenterhooks for the ruling after voters approved the redistricting referendum by a slim margin.
The April 21 redistricting referendum will be rendered moot if the Supreme Court decides to uphold a lower court ruling that said the effort violated Virginia’s constitution. 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, more court cases are likely to come that seek to challenge the mid-decade redistricting effort in other ways.
The General Assembly, controlled by Democratic lawmakers, in February passed a proposal for a redrawn congressional map with 10 Democratic-leaning districts and one solidly Republican district. Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed off on that proposed map, which voters approved last week.
Spanberger told Cardinal News on Monday that she hopes the Supreme Court will rule quickly.
“I do believe the referendum was constitutional and aligned with the law and hope that’s the court’s decision as well,” she said.
Former Del. William Fralin, R-Roanoke, who headed the No Gerrymandering Virginia group, disagreed. “As pointed out in the oral arguments today, not only were upwards of 1 million voters disenfranchised by the tardiness of the initial passage of the General Assembly resolution authorizing the gerrymandering amendment, so were the members of the General Assembly,” he said in a statement. “There is simply no way that two-thirds of the members would have authorized a special session that would include gerrymandering.”
A timeline and an argument
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.
Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled that the process used by General Assembly Democrats to enact the amendment was unconstitutional based on three arguments. Democratic lawmakers appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court.
The three main questions in the case before the Supreme Court are:
- Whether the 2024 special session was valid and active when the General Assembly took up the redistricting amendment in its first passage in October 2025;
- Whether or not the 45-day early voting period is part of the “intervening election” needed to amend the constitution; and
- Whether a legislative requirement to post the amendment for three months on courthouse grounds is still applicable in 2026.
Justices Wesley Russell Jr. and Stephen McCullough, two of the more conservative members of the seven-person state Supreme Court bench, asked questions of the counsel on both sides of the issue during Monday’s hearing. Most of those questions were posed to Matthew Seligman, counsel for House of Delegates Speaker Don Scott.
“We think, after listening to the oral arguments and certainly looking at the briefs, the law was very clear: the constitution was not followed and we hope that the court will rule accordingly,” said state Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, who brought the case, during an impromptu press conference after the hearing.
“We hope the court rules quickly, but we want them to take the time to review everything and make a sound and reasoned decision.”
During a separate impromptu gathering after the hearing, Matthew Seligman, counsel for Scott, told reporters he is optimistic.
“The challenges here are asking to overturn the will of the people of the commonwealth of Virginia. Over 2 million people voted in favor to ratify this proposed constitutional amendment last Tuesday, and the challengers are asking to overturn that democratic result,” he said. “I think the justices are appropriately interested in scrutinizing those arguments very carefully.”
Other legal challenges to the redistricting referendum
Virginia voters approved the redistricting referendum by a 2.9-point margin.
The State Board of Elections had a prescheduled meeting set for May 1 at which it planned to certify the referendum, said Andrea Gains, spokesperson for the Department of Elections. Whether certification occurs on that day is contingent upon the Virginia Supreme Court granting a stay of another recent Tazewell County Circuit Court injunction that sought to halt certification.
Attorney General Jay Jones said Friday that his office would immediately file an appeal with the Virginia Court of Appeals.
Three legal challenges to the redistricting effort are ongoing, including the one heard in the Virginia Supreme Court on Monday, according to former Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, an active opponent of the redistricting effort.
Two of those legal challenges are related to the referendum process and one to the new map. There are four constitutional issues and two statutory issues among the three cases. On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard two of the constitutional issues and one of the statutory issues, Cuccinelli said.
A Richmond Circuit Court ruled Sunday in favor of Democrats on one of the three legal challenges regarding a compactness and continuity requirement when redrawing congressional districts.
“We’ll see whether those plaintiffs appeal,” Cuccinelli said.
