Virginia Supreme Court Questions Democrats' Gerrymandering Process After Voter Approval
Left says
- •Virginia voters democratically approved the redistricting amendment by a majority, and courts should respect this expression of the popular will
- •The new congressional map would create fairer representation that better reflects Virginia's increasingly Democratic-leaning electorate
- •Republicans are using technical procedural challenges to overturn a legitimate election result they simply disagree with politically
- •The redistricting process followed established constitutional amendment procedures that have been used successfully in Virginia before
Right says
- •Democrats violated Virginia's constitution by improperly calling a special legislative session without gubernatorial authority and bypassing required procedural safeguards
- •The legislature illegally usurped redistricting authority from the nonpartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission that voters had previously established
- •Democrats manipulated the timing by passing the amendment after early voting had already begun, denying voters full knowledge of what they were voting for
- •The new map represents extreme gerrymandering that would eliminate competitive districts and guarantee Democrats 10 of 11 congressional seats
Common Take
High Consensus- The Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday regarding multiple legal challenges to the redistricting process
- Virginia voters narrowly approved the redistricting amendment last week by approximately 51.5% to 48.5%
- The new congressional map would shift Virginia's delegation from 6 Democratic and 5 Republican seats to 10 Democratic and 1 Republican seat
- Multiple justices expressed skepticism about aspects of the legislative process during Monday's hearing
The Arguments
Right argues
The Democratic-controlled legislature violated Virginia's constitution by calling a special session without gubernatorial authority and bypassing the nonpartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission that voters had previously established to prevent political manipulation of district lines.
Left counters
The legislature followed established constitutional amendment procedures that have been used successfully in Virginia before, and the amendment process itself provides a legitimate pathway to modify redistricting authority when circumstances warrant it.
Left argues
Virginia voters democratically approved this redistricting amendment by majority vote, and courts should respect this clear expression of the popular will rather than allowing technical procedural challenges to overturn legitimate election results.
Right counters
Even the Democrats' own lawyer admitted to the Virginia Supreme Court that the vote count is irrelevant to the constitutional violations, and procedural safeguards exist precisely to prevent majority tyranny and protect constitutional processes.
Right argues
Democrats manipulated the timing by passing the amendment in October 2025 after early voting had already begun, denying voters full knowledge of what they were voting for and violating the spirit of informed democratic participation.
Left counters
The amendment was passed before Election Day as constitutionally required, and voters had adequate opportunity to learn about and consider the redistricting proposal through extensive public debate and campaign coverage.
Left argues
The new congressional map would create fairer representation that better reflects Virginia's increasingly Democratic-leaning electorate, correcting years of Republican gerrymandering that artificially inflated GOP representation.
Right counters
The new map represents extreme gerrymandering that would eliminate competitive districts and guarantee Democrats 10 of 11 congressional seats, creating a more distorted representation than what currently exists with the 6-5 Democratic split.
Right argues
The legislature illegally usurped redistricting authority from the Virginia Redistricting Commission, circumventing the nonpartisan process that voters had specifically established to remove political self-interest from redistricting decisions.
Left counters
Constitutional amendments provide a legitimate mechanism for modifying governmental structures, and the legislature acted within its constitutional authority to propose changes to the redistricting process for voter consideration.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If you truly believe in respecting the democratic will of voters, why do you support overriding the previous voter-approved constitutional amendment that established the nonpartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission specifically to prevent political manipulation of district lines?”
Left asks Right
“If procedural violations are so serious that they invalidate democratic processes, why didn't Republicans challenge these same procedures before the vote took place, rather than waiting until after they lost the referendum to claim the process was illegitimate?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Progressive activists like those from Fair Fight Action or some Democratic Socialists who argue any means are justified to counter Republican gerrymandering nationwide, representing roughly 15-20% of the left coalition.
Right Fringe
Some Trump-aligned Republicans who might argue this justifies even more aggressive gerrymandering in red states as retaliation, representing about 25-30% of the right coalition.
Noise Assessment
Moderate noise level - while partisan media amplifies the story, the core constitutional procedure issues are substantive rather than performative, though some rhetoric about 'stealing elections' vs 'voter will' is overheated.
Sources (7)
<img src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/virginia-supreme-court-seems-skeptical-about-democratic-gerrymandering.jpg?id=66460263&width=1245&height=700&coordinates=0%2C6%2C0%2C101" /><br /><br /><p>Virginia <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/maximum-warfare-dems-celebrate-after-virginia-decides-to-disenfranchise-gop-voters" target="_blank">voted</a> last week in favor of a referendum to adopt a gerrymandered congressional map that would all but guarantee that 10 out of the state's 11 congressional seats go to Democrats in the upcoming midterm election. </p><p>There remains a good chance, however, that the new map may not ultimately be adopted.</p><h2>Background</h2><p>There are <a href="https://www.pilotonline.com/2026/04/26/next-steps-for-virginias-redistricting-referendum-unclear-as-legal-challenges-play-out/" target="_blank">numerous legal battles</a> across Virginia over whether the gerrymandering referendum that passed Tuesday is lawful. One of those battles — <em>Scott v. McDougle</em> — is now before the Virginia Supreme Court.</p><p>In October 2025, Republican state lawmakers and members of the Virginia Redistricting Commission <a href="https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-10-28-Complaint.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">filed</a> a lawsuit, claiming that the special session reconvened late last year to consider a constitutional amendment on redistricting was invalid as it was called not by the governor, who holds the exclusive right to do so, but by the speaker of the state House.</p><p>The complaint noted further that while the Virginia House of Delegates "has no constitutional authority to propose a plan to redraw or reapportion districts" for the U.S. Congress, as this falls under the purview of the Virginia Redistricting Commission, the state House nevertheless usurped the authority.</p><p>To bypass the commission, lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment to redraw the congressional map. Getting this amendment on the April 21 ballot required the approval of a corresponding resolution in two separate legislative sessions on either side of a state election. Challengers contend that this process was bungled and legally flawed.</p><p><strong>RELATED: <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/gop-bill-would-squeeze-democratic-hives-out-of-virginia-and-back-into-dc" target="_blank">GOP bill would squeeze Democratic hives out of Virginia — and back into DC </a></strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"> <img alt="" class="rm-shortcode" id="1ec84" src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/image.jpg?id=66460430&width=980" /> <small class="image-media media-photo-credit">Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D), a supporter of the gerrymandering scheme. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images</small></p><p>Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/virginia-democrats-just-hit-their-first-setback-and-it-could-make-a-difference-in-the-midterm-elections" target="_self">ruled</a> on Jan. 27 that the proposed constitutional amendment was unlawful, but the Virginia Supreme Court subsequently <a href="https://apnews.com/article/virginia-redistricting-democrats-referendum-court-lawsuits-09784036e696bbe8d4d254e15079a5d8" target="_blank">ruled</a> that Virginians could still vote for it in the statewide April 21 referendum while the case proceeds.</p><p>The day after the referendum passed, Hurley <a href="https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026-04-22-Final-judgment.pdf" target="_blank">blocked</a><a href="https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026-04-22-Final-judgment.pdf"></a> the state from certifying the results of the vote, ruling that the legislature's constitutional amendment and the special election on it were invalid.</p><h2>Skeptical of Democratic plot</h2><p>On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court <a href="https://youtu.be/zAGcdIwJtxM" target="_blank">heard</a> <a href="https://watch.vacourts.gov/#/events/d9b11eaf-869d-472b-a341-968865fcd748" target="_blank">arguments</a><a href="https://watch.vacourts.gov/#/events/d9b11eaf-869d-472b-a341-968865fcd748" target="_blank"></a> in <em>Scott v. McDougle.</em></p><p>One Virginia justice <a href="https://www.c-span.org/event/public-affairs-event/virginia-supreme-court-hears-case-on-redistricting-measure/442512" target="_blank">extracted concessions</a> from the defense at the outset that the "yes" vote in the referendum "doesn't tell us anything" about the merits of the challengers' claims, and that the Virginia General Assembly didn't follow its own procedural rules with regard to the special session during which the new congressional map was passed. </p><p>Multiple justices expressed skepticism about the validity of that special session.</p><p>One justice said that contrary to the previous expectation in Virginia that the legislature wouldn't sit year-round, the Democratic "interpretation of the special session would allow them to sit in continuous session for the better part of two years."</p><p>The same justice appeared <a href="https://youtu.be/zAGcdIwJtxM?t=3353" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">receptive</a> to the argument by Thomas McCarthy, attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, that "it's sort of a nonsensical position to say that the special session exists through a regular session" — referencing the <a href="https://www.vpm.org/news/2025-02-22/virginia-general-assembly-sine-die-2025-legislation-budget" target="_blank">overlap</a> of the 2024 special session and the 2025 general session.</p><p>The justices also did not appear entirely convinced by Democrats' argument that enough time had passed between when the amendment was first passed and the 2025 state election. The legislature voted on the amendment in October, weeks after early voting for the 2025 election had already begun. <br /></p><p>"What is your position — your client's position — regarding a constitutional amendment that is adopted at 6 p.m. on Election Day with an hour left at the polls?" asked one justice. "Is that still the next general election?"</p><p>Virginia Solicitor General Tillman Breckenridge responded that the amendment must only be passed before Election Day, rather than on it.</p><p>McCarthy argued to the contrary, claiming that for the amendment to have been valid, it should have been passed before the entire voting period, not just before Election Day 2025. A Virginia Supreme Court justice subsequently noted that the amendment process responsible for the passage of the gerrymandering legislation was unprecedented.</p><p>Of note, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond <a href="https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/virginia-court-declines-to-block-democrats-from-using-new-voter-approved-congressional-map/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ruled</a> on <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5850643-virginia-congressional-map-ruling/" target="_blank">Sunday</a> in a separate but related case that the Virginia General Assembly did not exceed its authority when passing the amendment on redistricting.</p><p><em>Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. </em><em><a href="https://www.theblaze.com/newsletters/theblaze-articlelink" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_self">Sign up here</a></em><em>!</em></p>
Virginia's gerrymandering fight intensifies as AG Jay Jones prepares to defend the controversial redistricting resolution before the state Supreme Court.
<img alt="jay jones gerrymandering virginia" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-27-145954-1200x675.jpg" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;" />'The attorney general's own lawyer completely undercut the public stance of the current attorney general.'
<p>The case is part of a national redistricting fight with high stakes for the November midterm elections</p><ul><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/feb/17/sign-up-for-the-breaking-news-us-email-to-get-newsletter-alerts-direct-to-your-inbox?utm_medium=ACQUISITIONS_STANDFIRST&utm_campaign=BN22326&utm_content=signup&utm_term=standfirst&utm_source=GUARDIAN_WEB">Sign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inbox</a></p></li></ul><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/virginia">Virginia</a> supreme court justices on Monday questioned whether the state’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats">Democratic</a>-led legislature complied with constitutional requirements when it sent a congressional redistricting plan to voters, in a case that carries high stakes for the balance of power in the US House.</p><p>The new districts, which could net Democrats four additional seats, won narrow voter approval last week. But a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/republicans">Republican</a> legal challenge contends the general assembly violated procedural rules by placing the constitutional amendment before voters to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. If the court agrees that lawmakers broke the rules, it could invalidate the amendment and render last week’s statewide vote meaningless.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/27/virginia-redistricting-map-house">Continue reading...</a>
The Virginia Supreme Court on Monday mulled the legality of Democrats’ redistricting referendum that gave the party a more favorable edge ahead of the midterms. The state’s highest court heard oral arguments Monday morning in a case brought forth by Republicans, arguing state Democratic legislators improperly expanded a legislative special session to take up redistricting…
The Virginia Supreme Court Monday heard from opponents of the state's new gerrymandered House district map, who argued the legislature violated the state constitution when it redrew the lines to favor Democrats.