Judges Cool to Legal Challenges as Democrats Move to Redraw Virginia’s Maps

Virginia Democrats’ effort to jump-start the process of redrawing the state’s congressional maps is already tied up in court — but so far, judges don’t seem eager to stop it.

The Virginia House of Delegates convened in late October at the state Capitol in Richmond for a special session. Within days, Democrats approved a proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting, a move Republicans denounced as unconstitutional and politically motivated just one week before the Nov. 4 election. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)

A trio of court clerks voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit Thursday, three days after Richmond Circuit Court Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland said they lacked standing to block the redistricting process as it currently stands.

And in a separate case in Tazewell County, Republican lawmakers dropped a portion of their lawsuit aimed at thwarting Democrats’ redistricting push after Judge Jack Hurley Jr. similarly declined to interfere in legislative proceedings.

Republicans have remained tight-lipped about their next steps in court. But University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said lawyers could regroup after the rush of pre-election legal challenges, which he said may have also been directed at persuading voters.

“They may try other judges, or they may try other theories, or there may be a way to to live a fight another day,” Tobias said.

Top Democrats in the General Assembly surprised their GOP colleagues last month by calling an 11th-hour, pre-election special session with the goal of advancing a proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution. The amendment would allow the legislature to redraw the state’s Congressional seats in the middle of the decade in response to similar actions by other states.

Democrats said they made the move reluctantly, to counter gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states done at the behest of President Donald Trump.

While the state Senate approved the proposal on Oct. 31, the process is far from over. Lawmakers will need to approve it again when they meet in January before sending the amendment for final consideration by voters, likely in the spring of 2026.

The two lawsuits sought to block the process before it could make it that far. In both complaints, attorneys argued the special session itself had not been properly called.

The trio of circuit court clerks who filed the Richmond case — Heidi Barshinger of Henrico County, Christalyn Jett of Spotsylvania County and Gordon Erby of Lunenburg County — also argued Democrats had failed to follow the procedure laid out for constitutional amendments by holding their first vote on the proposal in the midst of early voting in the House of Delegates election.

The clerks claimed lawmakers had put them in a bind by failing to provide copies of the proposed amendment 90 days before an election, as required by a section of state code Democrats argued is antiquated.

On Oct. 29, midway through the special session, Hurley declined to issue the emergency injunction sought by Republican lawmakers.

The second lawsuit, filed minutes after the state Senate gavelled out on Oct. 31, got an emergency hearing on Nov. 3.

But in a ruling from the bench and later written opinion, Thorne-Begland denied the clerks’ emergency restraining order and preliminary injunction, writing that any harm they might face was “entirely speculative,” given the General Assembly clerks had yet to pass them copies of the proposed amendment to post at courthouses.

Thorne-Begland also said it was not the judiciary’s place to interfere in constitutional amendments under consideration by the General Assembly. At the Nov. 3 hearing, he seemed pained that the redistricting wars had arrived in Virginia.

“This is just another symptom of how strained our democracy is becoming,” he said.

A trio of Republicans who are plaintiffs in the Tazewell case — Sen. Ryan McDougle, R-Hanover, Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin, and Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Scott — did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment.

Attorney Brad Marrs, who represented the clerks, and Del. Tom Garrett, R-Buckingham, House Republicans’ point-person for the legal battles, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

John Lichtenstein, an attorney representing the clerks of the House and Senate in both Tazewell and Richmond cases, praised Thorne-Begland’s decision.

“We are pleased the Courts denied the attempt to interrupt that constitutional legislative process, which now has the chance to move through its proper stages,” Lichtenstein said in an email.

by Ben Paviour, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.