The Supreme Court of Virginia heard oral arguments Monday in Richmond over a challenge to the state's redistricting amendment approved by voters last year, as a legal dispute continues over whether the referendum followed proper constitutional procedures.
A Tazewell County judge had previously issued a legal challenge after projections indicated the 'Yes' campaign would win by single digits, placing election certification on hold. The separate argument before the high court centered on the validity of the October-November process that led to the referendum.
What the Right Is Saying
Attorney Thomas McCarthy argued for Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, R-Hanover, and other officials challenging the referendum. Republicans have raised two primary legal objections to the amendment process.
First, they argue that the intent of the special session — called months earlier by then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin and adjourned indefinitely — was improperly used to pass the amendment. Second, they contend that the November 2025 election did not represent an 'intervening election' as required by law because early voting had already begun under a 45-day window established during previous Democratic control of Richmond.
During oral arguments, justices pressed Seligmann on whether procedural irregularities should have been addressed before the election took place. One justice noted that Democrats had asked the court to delay ruling on such issues until after the actual election, citing a 100-year-old Supreme Court of Virginia precedent.
"The fact that there's a 'yes' vote doesn't tell us anything about the merits" of whether the legislative process conformed with law, one justice observed during the proceedings.
What the Left Is Saying
Attorneys Richard Hawkins and Matthew Seligman, along with Solicitor General Tillman Breckenridge, represented Democrats seeking to uphold Tuesday's election result. In court, Seligmann told justices that Virginians spoke through their vote in a 'clear and comprehensive process' outlined in the Virginia Constitution.
"The assembly rightly referred the proposed amendment to legislators a second time in January as required, and it went to voters on Tuesday," Seligmann said. "That is all that Article 12 requires. As a result, the proposed constitutional amendment has been ratified and is now part of the Virginia Constitution."
Seligmann argued that the General Assembly, led by Speaker Don Scott Jr., D-Portsmouth, and Senate President L. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, passed the measure through proper means during an October special session.
"The circuit court attempted to interfere with that democratic process by halting it," he said of Judge Jack Hurley Jr.'s prior objection. "This court properly put a stop to that."
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones has publicly defended the amendment as representing the 'will of the people,' with his office arguing that voters clearly supported the measure.
What the Numbers Show
Cuccinelli noted in his post-mortem analysis that Republicans were outspent 3-to-1 by Democrats in the campaign leading up to Tuesday's vote. He suggested this spending disparity may have backfired on Democrats.
"The only thing Democrats' money would have been good for is 'making voters mad' and therefore giving the GOP an accidental win," Cuccinelli said, adding that it remains unclear whether Republicans can overturn the result even if they succeed in their procedural arguments.
Justice Wesley Russell's first question to Seligmann and Hawkins was whether Tuesday's vote outcome even mattered legally. According to Cuccinelli, defense counsel conceded this point: "He got counsel for the defendants to concede 'no the vote outcome does not matter' — they didn't talk about the margin [or the] 3:1 spending."
Cuccinelli said Democrats had previously used their electoral victory as justification for the redistricting amendment's legitimacy, but acknowledged that strategy now faces complications given what transpired in court.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court of Virginia must decide whether the process leading to November's redistricting referendum complied with constitutional requirements. The justices appeared skeptical of Democratic arguments during Monday's proceedings, particularly regarding how procedural concerns should be addressed retroactively after an election has already occurred.
Cuccinelli argued that AG Jones' public defense centered on 'will of the people' has been undermined by his own lawyers acknowledging in court that vote outcomes do not determine legal validity. The case may hinge on technical questions about when special sessions formally conclude and whether early voting windows affect what constitutes a valid intervening election.
A ruling is expected before the state's electoral certification deadlines. Whatever the outcome, the decision could establish precedent for how Virginia handles future constitutional amendments and redistricting measures.