Virginia’s Supreme Court justices were mostly stony-faced at Monday’s argument over the state’s mid-decade partisan redistricting plan approved by voters last week.
Justice Wesley G. Russell Jr. peppered counsel with questions that suggest he might side with Republican challengers, citing procedural irregularities. He focused on two of the three key issues in the case: whether the amendment was properly considered at the 2024 special session and whether the state constitution’s requirement for an intervening election was met.
Justice Stephen R. McCullough also chimed in, asking several times whether what the lawmakers did here was unprecedented. The answer might not be determinative, but it matters, he said. He also talked about the established need for “strict compliance” with procedural mechanisms.
A constitutional amendment is “hard to undo if ill-advised,” he said.
Russell resisted any suggestion that it matters that Virginians already cast their votes in a narrow margin in favor of the measure. Virginia voters approved the aggressive mid-decade redistricting plan April 21, with 51.5% of the state’s voters supporting the measure.
“It doesn’t matter if it passed by one vote,” he said. The question is whether lawmakers followed the right procedures.
Chief Justice Cleo Powell and Justices Teresa M. Chafin, Junius P. Fulton III, D. Arthur Kelsey, and Thomas P. Mann said almost nothing.
The lawsuit—filed last October by Republican lawmakers in the state—asked for injunctive relief and a declaration the proposed amendment was void for failing to comply with procedural rules.
If allowed to proceed, the new map will redraw the Commonwealth’s 11 US House of Representatives districts to give Democrats a 10-to-one advantage.
The proposed redistricting, part of a national Democratic response to GOP efforts to redraw maps in other states, is a temporary measure. Governor Abigail Spanberger, who signed the redistricting bill Feb. 6, has emphasized the state’s bipartisan commission will return after the 2030 census.
State Sen. Ryan McDougle, who is leading the Republican challenge, spoke to media in front of the courthouse with his daughter by his side, saying he wants the Justices to take the time they need to reach the right conclusion.
Counsel for all of the parties “did a good job for both sides,” he said. “But that is not the point—the point is what does the constitution say, and the constitution is clear.”
He declined to say what he believed the challengers’ strongest argument to be.
Matthew Seligman of Grayhawk Law, who argued on behalf of Democratic lawmakers defending the amendment, told reporters that the challengers were effectively trying to overturn the will of the people. He said he thinks the justices are “appropriately scrutinizing” the issues.
Procedural Problems
A Virginia circuit-court judge in Tazewell County, an overwhelmingly Republican county about 120 miles west of Roanoke, in January declared the amendment ineffective, citing three problems with how the proposed amendment made its way through the legislature.
Judge Jack Hurley Hurley said the General Assembly lacked authority to adopt the proposed amendment because it was passed in an improperly expanded 2024 special session. He also ruled the state constitution’s intervening-election requirement wasn’t met and said lawmakers failed to comply with a now-repealed statute requiring publication and posting of proposed constitutional amendments.
The lawmakers and the Commonwealth say that’s wrong because absent a violation of a constitutional requirement, non-compliance with internal legislative rules provides no basis for relief.
On April 22, day after voters approved the amendment in a referendum, Hurley enjoined elections officials from certifying the results or giving the constitutional amendment any effect. That order, which was issued in a different lawsuit led by the Republican National Committee, is being appealed.
The Republican lawmakers are represented by Gillespie, Hart, Pyott & Thomas PC and Consovoy McCarthy PLLC. The Democratic lawmakers are also represented by Hawkins Law Firm PC.
The case is Scott v. McDougle, Va., No. 260127, argument held 4/27/26.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: