The Virginia Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to Democrats on Friday, striking down a voter-approved congressional redistricting plan that aimed to bolster the party's standing in this year's midterm elections. The 4-3 ruling found that the state's Democratic-led legislature violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional amendment, authorizing the mid-decade redistricting, on the ballot. While voters narrowly approved the amendment on April 21, the court's decision renders that vote null.
Court's Reasoning
Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, writing for the majority, stated that the legislature submitted the proposed constitutional amendment to voters "in an unprecedented manner." He added, "This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void."
Democrats had hoped to secure as many as four additional U.S. House seats under Virginia's redrawn map, an effort to counteract Republican redistricting strategies encouraged by Donald Trump elsewhere in the country. This ruling, coupled with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, is seen as further enhancing the Republican advantage in congressional gerrymandering ahead of the midterms.
Reactions
Richard Hudson, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, hailed the ruling as another indicator of GOP momentum. "We're on offense, and we're going to win," he declared in a statement.
Conversely, Don Scott, the Democratic speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, acknowledged the court's opinion but emphasized the voters' clear approval of the new congressional map. "We gave this decision to the voters — exactly where it belongs — and they spoke loud and clear," he said. "They voted YES because they wanted to fight back against the Trump power grab."
Background
Legislative voting districts are typically redrawn once a decade following each census to reflect population shifts. However, Donald Trump initiated an unusual wave of mid-decade redistricting last year by urging Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts, aiming to gain several additional U.S. House seats and maintain their party's slim majority in the midterm elections.
In response, California approved new voter-backed districts favoring Democrats, and Utah's top court imposed a new congressional map also beneficial to Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans stand to gain from new House districts passed in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee. Further gains could materialize after the U.S. Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling, which has prompted some other Republican states to consider redrawing their maps before this year's elections.
Virginia's Current Delegation
Virginia's current U.S. House delegation comprises six Democrats and five Republicans, elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map following the 2020 census. The now-invalidated new districts could have significantly improved Democrats' chances, potentially allowing them to win all but one of the state's 11 congressional seats.
Majority Opinion
The Supreme Court's majority was critical of the state's redrawing of congressional maps to benefit a single political party. The justices noted that while 47% of the state's voters supported GOP congressional candidates in 2024, the proposed new map could have resulted in Democrats holding 91% of the state's House delegation.
The Democratic-drawn map included five districts anchored in northern Virginia's Democratic stronghold, one of which stretched "like a lobster" to encompass Republican-leaning rural areas. Revisions to four other districts across Richmond, southern Virginia, and Hampton Roads would have diluted the voting power of conservative blocs. Additionally, a reshaped district in parts of western Virginia would have grouped three Democratic-leaning college towns to offset other Republican voters.
Legal Challenge
The state Supreme Court's seven justices are appointed by the state legislature, which has seen shifts between Democratic, Republican, and split control in recent years, leading legal experts to conclude the body lacks a fixed ideological profile.
The case before the court centered not on the configuration of the new districts but on the process the General Assembly used to authorize them. Since the state's redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers needed to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. This required approval of a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election occurring between them, to place the amendment on the ballot.
Timeline of Votes
The legislature's initial approval of the amendment took place last October, while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the general election day. The legislature's second vote on the amendment occurred after a new legislative session began in January. Lawmakers also approved a separate bill in February outlining the new districts, contingent on voter approval of the constitutional amendment.
Judicial arguments focused on whether the legislature's initial approval of the amendment came too late, given that early voting had already commenced for the 2025 general election. Attorney Matthew Seligman, defending the legislature, argued that "election" should be narrowly defined as the Tuesday of the general election. Under this interpretation, the legislature's first vote on the redistricting amendment would have occurred before the election and been constitutional.
However, the Supreme Court stated in its ruling that "this view appears to be wholly unprecedented in Virginia's history." Thomas McCarthy, an attorney for the plaintiffs, contended that an "election" should encompass the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which spans several weeks in Virginia. If so, he argued, the legislature's initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution.
The Supreme Court concurred with this argument, writing: "The General Assembly passed the proposed constitutional amendment for the first time well after voters had begun casting ballots during the 2025 general election." By the time lawmakers initially endorsed the constitutional amendment, statewide voters had already cast over 1.3 million ballots in the general election, representing approximately 40% of the total votes ultimately cast, the court noted.
Dissent
The Supreme Court's ruling affirms a decision by a judge in rural Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia. The court had previously placed a hold on that ruling, allowing the redistricting vote to proceed before hearing arguments on the case.
In her dissent to Friday's ruling, Chief Justice Cleo Powell argued that the election for the purpose of considering the amendment does not include the early voting period. "The majority's definition creates an infinite voting loop that appears to have no established beginning," she wrote, "only a definitive end: Election Day." The decision underscores the ongoing, high-stakes legal and political battles over electoral maps that will shape congressional power for years to come.
