Redistricting Dispute Moves to State Supreme Court

Virginia’s Supreme Court is scheduled to review the legality of the process used by the General Assembly to pass a proposed constitutional amendment. The amendment would allow the legislature to redraw Virginia’s congressional boundaries before the 2026 midterm elections.

Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. initially granted an injunction on January 27, preventing the state from holding a referendum on April 21 to put the question before voters. This action halted a Democrat-led proposal that had divided local lawmakers.

Legal Challenges to the Amendment Process

Judge Hurley’s ruling, based on a January 21 lawsuit filed by Republican lawmakers, found that the General Assembly did not adhere to its own procedures when passing the redistricting amendment. The court determined that the General Assembly reconvened a 2024 special session in 2025 to pass the amendment, despite a prior agreement to limit the session’s scope and require unanimous consent for any expansion. The court found that procedural resolutions expanding the session’s business did not receive the required two-thirds supermajority vote.

Additional Procedural Concerns

The court also agreed with plaintiffs, including Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle and House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, that the October 31 vote on the amendment did not constitute an intervening election, as approximately 40% of ballots had already been cast in the 2025 general election. Furthermore, the court found that the proposed amendment was not posted at the front door of every courthouse at least three months prior to the next general election.

Responses and Context

Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the four proposed amendments, including the redistricting amendment, on February 6. Democratic legislative leaders criticized the Tazewell County Circuit Court ruling as “legally flawed” and “unprecedented,” suggesting it was the result of strategic filing location.

Broader Implications

A political science professor at Randolph-Macon College noted that the state court ruling does not address the legality of mid-decade redistricting itself. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously upheld similar practices in California and Texas, despite legal challenges.