Virginia Democrats have invested significant taxpayer funds—millions, in fact—into a special election focused on gerrymandering, a situation that might soon find its resolution in court.
House Bill 1384, an amendment proposal, seeks to modify the Constitution, allowing the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to redraw electoral districts. This action could strip Republicans of all but one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Furthermore, it earmarks $5 million in taxpayer dollars for a special election to endorse this amendment, potentially paving the way for even more expenses.
The legislation specifies that the $5 million is allocated to the Department of Elections to manage various election-related costs, such as educating voters, subsidizing absentee ballots, and other expenses tied to the April 21, 2026 special election. Interestingly, it notes that “additional costs incurred in conducting this election shall be borne” similarly to how costs are handled for General Assembly elections.
So, it seems that the $5 million is more of a ballpark figure; extra funding could be necessary down the line.
Additionally, counties in Virginia might need to dip into their own budgets for elections. For example, Lunenburg County’s average election costs hover between $18,000 and $25,000, while Buckingham County might need at least $30,000, as reported by the Farmville Herald. Linda Easter Davis, the chairwoman of the Buckingham County Board of Elections, indicated that the Virginia Department of Elections estimated it could cost about $14.2 million just to mail notifications to voters if the redistricting goes ahead. In total, this could amount to nearly $20 million for the state, not even factoring in the expenses for polling across the 95 counties or other potential financial strains on the state budget.
Moreover, the bill allocates an additional $100,000 for the Legislative Services Division and another $100,000 for the Legislative Automated Services Division. This funding seems crucial, perhaps, to ensure the referendum is defended in court.
Recently, a hearing at the Virginia Supreme Court took place, focusing on the legality of the election process—not the outcomes. Following this, the state Supreme Court opted to suspend a lower court order that had blocked the redistricting referendum, leaving its future uncertain.
After the hearing, Ken Cuccinelli—former Virginia attorney general—remarked on the unpredictability of the court’s decision, especially with the November midterm elections looming. He noted that one potential indicator would be how the court reacts to the request to block the lower court’s injunction.
Cuccinelli also suggested that the court could have postponed its response to the request for a stay until after the hearing, but the denial might imply that the court plans to invalidate the referendum, albeit still needing time to finalize its stance.
As the end of May approaches, Cuccinelli expressed surprise if a decision isn’t reached by then. It seems referendums are becoming rare, and the waste beyond just taxpayer money in these elections is beginning to draw attention.
In context, Axios noted that, excluding the last weeks of campaigning, both pro- and anti-redistricting factions spent upwards of $83 million on the referendum, with about $62 million contributed by those supporting the changes. Cuccinelli commented that even though Democrats secured just over half the vote, they managed it despite facing a significant financial disadvantage.
Reflecting on the potential outcome, he added that if the referendum fails, it would represent a considerable waste—not only of resources but also political capital, potentially granting Republicans a strategic edge as Democrats risk alienating Virginia voters.
