Recently, Virginia approved new congressional maps that are likely to favor Democrats, possibly securing 10 out of the state’s 11 seats in the upcoming midterm elections. However, it remains uncertain whether these maps will ultimately be implemented.
Background
Currently, there are various legal disputes surrounding the validity of the recent gerrymandering referendum in Virginia. One notable case, Scott vs. McDougle, is already being reviewed by the Virginia Supreme Court.
In October 2025, Republican lawmakers and the Virginia Redistricting Commission filed a lawsuit claiming that a special legislative session—which was convened late last year to discuss constitutional amendments to redistricting—was unauthorized as it was called by the Speaker of the House, not the Governor, who holds exclusive authority in such matters.
The suit further argues that the Virginia House of Delegates lacked the constitutional power to propose redistricting plans to Congress, a responsibility designated to the Virginia Redistricting Commission. Lawmakers sought to bypass this commission by proposing a constitutional amendment to redraw the congressional map. To be valid, this amendment needed corresponding resolutions approved by two different legislatures before the state elections. Critics of the process assert that it was flawed and legally unsound.
Judge Jack Hurley Jr. of the Tazewell County Circuit Court ruled on January 27 that the proposed constitutional amendment was illegal—a verdict later upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Virginians are still able to vote in favor of the amendment in the statewide referendum set for April 21.
Following the referendum’s passage, Hurley issued a ruling that prevented the state from certifying the vote results, declaring both the constitutional amendment and the special election associated with it as invalid.
Skepticism Toward Democratic Conspiracies
On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Scott v. McDougle.
Initially, the defense contended that a “yes” vote on the referendum does not provide any indication regarding the opponents’ case. They also pointed out procedural inconsistencies during the special session where the new congressional map was approved. Several justices expressed doubt about the legitimacy of this special session.
One judge noted that Democrats’ interpretation implies the Legislature could essentially remain in session for the majority of two years, which contradicts Virginia’s historical understanding that the legislature should not be in session year-round.
The same justice also mentioned that it seems unreasonable to suggest that a special session could persist concurrently with a regular session.
The justices seemed unconvinced by the Democrats’ argument regarding the timing of the constitutional amendment’s passage, questioning whether enough time had elapsed between its initial approval and the state election in 2025. The amendment was voted on in October, just weeks after early voting had begun.
One justice posed a question regarding the amendment’s acceptance just before the election: “Does that still count as being prior to the next general election?” To this, Virginia Attorney General Tillman Breckenridge replied that it should ideally pass before Election Day. In contrast, attorney Thomas McCarthy argued that for the amendment to be valid, it should have been finalized before the 2025 voting period, not only just before the election itself. A Virginia Supreme Court justice observed that the process leading to the gerrymandering amendment was quite unprecedented.
Interestingly, the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond had previously ruled that the Virginia General Assembly acted within its authority concerning a redistricting amendment.
