Virginia's redistricting battle escalated Thursday as the state Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments after a county judge blocked certification of referendum results that approved a new congressional map.
Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled late Wednesday that the ballot language was unconstitutional, halting certification of the election just days after voters approved the measure 51%-49%. The referendapproved map is projected to give Democrats a 10-1 majority in Virginia's House delegation, potentially flipping multiple Republican-held seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jeff Ryer said the party is directly involved in a separate case before Richmond City Circuit Court challenging the new maps. According to an RPV statement, that case is titled RNC v. VA State Board of Elections, with a decision on any injunction blocking the new maps expected next week.
Reps. Morgan Griffith and Ben Cline, R-Va., joined the Republican National Committee in a lawsuit arguing that state law required an 'intervening election' before a referendum could go to voters, and that early voting beginning before the referendum drafting process started made the vote 'void ab initio.'
Delegate Wren Williams, R-Stuart, an attorney who had favored allowing counties to decline election preparations until the Supreme Court of Virginia stayed an earlier ruling, argued the referendum was illegitimate. 'There are huge constitutional issues with this process to begin with,' Williams said in an interview. 'In this case, people can say the voters decided all they want, but they didn't decide based on the process that we have in the Constitution.'
Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick Jr. of the Roanoke-based Western District of Virginia said the state Supreme Court had issued its postponement hoping voters would vote 'no' and make any legal action moot. 'There are strong arguments that the legislature did not follow its own rules when it passed this proposed amendment,' Fishwick said, predicting a 'prompt' decision.
What the Left Is Saying
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, a Democrat who defeated Republican incumbent Jason Miyares in November, announced his office would immediately appeal Hurley's ruling. 'Virginians have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the people's vote,' Jones said in a statement.
State Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, R-Hanover, told Fox News Digital that voters were misled by the ballot question. 'If this were really about fairness, the advocates wouldn't have needed to blow $90 million-plus to trick voters,' McDougle said. 'Litigation is still pending with the courts, but the bottom line is clear: Virginians deserve far better.'
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has defended the redistricting measure as a 'temporary measure' to prevent former President Trump from trying to 'rig' the midterms, framing the map as a safeguard against potential Republican manipulation of district boundaries.
What the Numbers Show
Voters approved the ballot measure 51%-49%, a slim margin of roughly 50,000 votes out of approximately 3.4 million ballots cast, according to election data. The new map would shift Virginia's congressional delegation from a 7-4 Republican majority to a projected 10-1 Democratic majority.
The ballot question campaign reportedly cost advocates more than $90 million, making it one of the most expensive redistricting ballot measures in U.S. history. Republicans have pointed to the high spending as evidence of a misleading campaign.
The Supreme Court of Virginia in March stayed an earlier injunction from Hurley, clearing the way for the referendum to advance while noting it had not ruled on the merits. Hurley's late Wednesday ruling declared the ballot language unconstitutional and blocked certification despite the earlier stay.
The Bottom Line
The Virginia Supreme Court is now faced with deciding whether the referendum process followed constitutional requirements, potentially invalidating a vote that has already been cast. The timing is critical: the 2026 midterm elections are approaching, and congressional districts must be finalized soon for candidate filing and preparation.
Legal experts say the case presents significant questions about ballot language requirements, referendum procedures, and the authority of courts to invalidate voter-approved measures. A ruling is expected promptly given the electoral calendar constraints.