Virginia Court Strikes Down Redistricting Amendment Headed for April Ballot

A Virginia circuit court on Tuesday struck down a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at giving lawmakers the option to redraw congressional districts mid-decade, dealing a major setback to Democratic legislative leaders who say the change is needed to respond to partisan gerrymandering in some Republican-led states and had hoped to put the measure before voters in an April referendum.

In a 22-page ruling issued by the Tazewell County Circuit Court, Judge Jack C. Hurley found that the legislature acted unlawfully when it approved the redistricting amendment during a special legislative session days before the Nov. 4 election, concluding that lawmakers exceeded the scope of that session, violated their own procedural rules and failed to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements governing amendments to the Virginia Constitution.

As a result, the court declared the amendment process “void ab initio,” meaning legally invalid from the outset.

Ruling blocks April vote on redistricting amendment

Democrats had planned to ask voters on April 21 whether the General Assembly should be allowed, under limited circumstances, to redraw congressional and legislative districts between censuses.

Instead, the court ruled that the amendment was improperly adopted and cannot advance to the ballot as scheduled. The judge also barred state election officials from taking further steps to submit the measure to voters unless and until the constitutional requirements are met.

Democratic leaders said they intend to appeal the decision, which they argue improperly blocks voters from weighing in on the proposal.

The lawsuit was brought by Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, R-Hanover, who also serves as a legislative commissioner on the Virginia Redistricting Commission.

McDougle and other plaintiffs argued that Democrats unlawfully expanded the scope of a 2024 special session that had been convened by then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin primarily addressed budget matters, and they did so after voting for the amendment process had already begun.

In siding with the plaintiffs, the court agreed that while the special session itself was valid, the General Assembly overstepped when it adopted House Joint Resolution 6007 — the resolution proposing the constitutional amendment — because redistricting was not among the matters permitted to be considered during that session under existing House rules and resolutions.

“The special session was allowed to continue, but it did not allow the majority to unilaterally expand the scope of business,” the judge wrote, concluding that lawmakers failed to follow the procedural safeguards they themselves had adopted for calling and conducting a special session.

Court cites timing, notice failures under state Constitution

The ruling also focused on the timing of the amendment’s passage.

Under the Virginia Constitution, proposed amendments must be approved by two separately elected General Assemblies, with an intervening general election for the House of Delegates.

The court found that the amendment was improperly advanced during the 2024 special session and that actions taken during the 2026 regular session could not retroactively cure those defects or satisfy the “next ensuing general election” requirement set out in the constitution.

In addition, the court held that state officials failed to comply with a Virginia statute requiring public posting of proposed constitutional amendments at courthouses and other public locations at least three months before the next general election.

Because that posting did not occur, the court said election officials are prohibited from submitting the amendment to voters.

Taken together, the court concluded that “any and all matters, motions, actions, or votes regarding House Joint Resolution 6007” violated the General Assembly’s own rules and were therefore illegal.

GOP, allies call decision a victory for rule of law

Republicans and allied advocacy groups hailed the decision as a rebuke of what they described as a partisan end-run around constitutional safeguards.

In a joint statement, McDougle and former U.S. House Speaker Eric Cantor, the honorary co-chair of Virginians for Fair Maps, said the ruling vindicated their argument that Democrats ignored clear legal limits.

“Today’s ruling is a decisive victory for the rule of law and Virginia voters,” the statement said.

“The court confirmed that Democrat legislative leaders unlawfully expanded a special session, violated their own rules, and attempted to force through a redistricting constitutional amendment while Virginians were already voting.”

The judge, they added, “rightly declared those actions void” from the start. “If they continue to move forward with the unconstitutional amendment process, the Democrats would be defying the order of the court.”

The statement emphasized the GOP’s position that the case was “never about partisanship,” but rather about process and constitutional compliance. “The court made clear that elections matter, notice matters, and the rules apply to everyone — even those in power,” McDougle and Cantor said.

Democrats blast ruling, promise to appeal

Democratic leaders, however, sharply criticized the ruling and signaled they would fight it.

House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, who called lawmakers back to Richmond for the special session in October, accused Republicans of using the courts to block a policy they could not defeat politically and said the General Assembly would appeal immediately.

“Nothing that happened today will dissuade us from continuing to move forward and put this matter directly to the voters,” Scott said in a statement. “Republicans who can’t win at the ballot box are abusing the legal process in an attempt to sow confusion and block Virginians from voting.”

Scott called the lawsuit “court-shopping, plain and simple,” and said Democrats are “prepared for the next step.” “Voters — not politicians — will have the final say,” he said.

Judge Hurley was appointed to the court by former Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican.

Advocacy groups aligned with Democrats echoed that message, framing the ruling as a temporary obstacle rather than a final outcome.

Keren Charles Dongo, campaign manager for Virginians for Fair Elections, said she expected the decision to be appealed and warned that the ruling could mislead voters.

“This is a clear attempt to confuse voters and block them from having a say,” Dongo said. “Republicans court-shopped for a ruling because litigation and misinformation are the only tools they have left.”

Dongo added: “We’re prepared for what comes next, and Virginians deserve both the right to vote and the chance to level the playing field.”

The amendment at the center of the dispute grew out of Democratic concerns about efforts in some Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, moves that party leaders have linked to pressure from former President Donald Trump and warned could reshape the national political landscape.

In 2020, Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan redistricting commission to draw legislative and congressional maps. When that commission deadlocked in 2021, the task fell to the Virginia Supreme Court, which adopted maps that Republicans have largely defended and Democrats have criticized as more favorable to the GOP.

Earlier this month, Democrats in the newly organized legislature for a second time advanced the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the General Assembly, under narrow conditions, to revisit district lines between censuses — for example, if a court invalidates a map or if federal law changes.

Supporters argued the amendment would give Virginia a tool to respond more quickly to legal or demographic shifts, rather than locking in maps for a full decade.

Republicans countered that the proposal would reopen the door to partisan gerrymandering and undermine the intent of the voter-approved redistricting commission. They also warned that Democrats were rushing the amendment through an unusual procedural pathway to get it before voters as soon as possible.

Those procedural concerns formed the backbone of McDougle’s lawsuit.

The court ultimately agreed, finding that while the General Assembly has broad authority to propose constitutional amendments, it must do so in strict compliance with the Virginia Constitution, state law, and its own internal rules.

The ruling does not permanently bar lawmakers from pursuing a redistricting amendment in the future, but it does require them to restart the process in a manner consistent with constitutional timelines and procedural requirements.

by Markus Schmidt, 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.