Virginia Supreme Court Redistricting Debate
WASHINGTON – Democrats encountered rigorous scrutiny during oral arguments at the Virginia Supreme Court on Monday regarding a redistricting referendum that passed by a narrow margin last week. However, most justices were notably quiet throughout the proceedings.
Republicans are contesting the referendum which enabled Democrats to potentially gain up to four seats in local councils, possibly resulting in a 10-1 advantage over Republicans. They argue that the Democratic-led General Assembly bypassed procedural rules to get the referendum on the ballot.
According to the state constitution, any changes affecting voters would necessitate a constitutional amendment, which involves the legislature passing a resolution during two consecutive sessions, with an election in between.
Democrats claim that they have fulfilled these requirements, partly due to a special session last year, which they argue will continue in 2024 and resume in a regular session in 2025. Republicans counter that a special session should not be counted as two separate sessions.
Moreover, they pointed out that the initial vote on the amendment occurred in October while early voting for off-year elections was still happening, meaning the essential two sessions with an intervening election were not established.
Lower courts are showing skepticism about whether the Democrats adhered to the correct procedures.
Democratic attorney Matthew Seligman asserted to the state high court that “the General Assembly followed every requirement established by the Constitution.”
He contended, “The circuit court attempted to undermine the democratic process by attempting to halt it. The challengers aim to disrupt the results of that democratic process.”
The justices quickly dismissed Seligman’s argument that the referendum reflected the will of Virginians, drawing attention to the procedural irregularities. Other justices primarily focused on challenging Seligman regarding procedural complexities, which Republican lawyers found relatively straightforward to address.
Interestingly, fewer than half of the seven justices on the state’s highest court posed questions during the oral arguments.
Another procedural concern raised was that the General Assembly did not publish the proposed amendment 90 days in advance, then retroactively withdrew that requirement.
Republican attorney Thomas McCarthy stated, “Many voters across the Commonwealth aren’t adequately informed about what’s happening in Richmond. They need time to understand.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters described the situation as a “blatant power grab,” asserting that “the Commonwealth needs time to grasp the entire situation.”
Democrats countered that voters’ preferences should not be overlooked due to technicalities. They also stressed that the Virginia Supreme Court should refrain from interfering with legislative proceedings.
The referendum, which allows the state Legislature to temporarily redraw congressional districts instead of going through the constitutionally mandated bipartisan commission, passed with a vote of 51.6% to 48.4%.
Currently, Virginia’s Congressional delegation comprises six Democrats and five Republicans. The newly proposed map could create advantageous conditions for a 10-1 Democratic majority, though this outcome isn’t certain.
It’s fairly uncommon for a court to invalidate the results of a referendum.
