Virginia’s redistricting fight has turned into a courtroom sprint after a Tazewell County judge blocked certification of a narrowly passed amendment that would redraw the congressional map, with Republicans calling it a partisan power grab and the state Supreme Court set to hear urgent challenges that could decide control of the map before candidates file for the ballot.
Longtime Del. Terry Kilgore, the Republican leader of the Virginia House, called the mid-decade redraw unlawful and said party politics drove the change. “This is Virginia. We normally get along, normally go through things the right way,” Kilgore said. “I’ve been here over 30 years. … I’ve never seen anything like this so partisan since I’ve been here, and it was a very sad day for the Commonwealth.”
Kilgore told reporters the pressure on the state Supreme Court is intense and he expects the court to follow the law. “I think if they follow the law, they will definitely strike this down and have it null and void, so we’re optimistic,” Kilgore said. That belief frames much of the Republican legal strategy now.
More than three million Virginians voted on the amendment on April 21, with the measure passing by a slim 51.5% to 48.5% margin. Kilgore argues the narrow result shows Virginia remains competitive rather than the blue one-party map Democrats claim it to be. He says the numbers prove this was about raw political advantage, not fairness.
“They thought we were going to lose by 15 points, and that would make their argument that Virginia is a 10-1 state,” Kilgore said. “Of course it was like at 2% and that shows you how close Virginia really is, that we are a 6-5 state, and we actually won some of the districts that they have redrawn. This is just a power grab. That’s all you can say, a power grab by the national Democrats.”
Judge Jack Hurley’s decision to halt certification grew out of Republican National Committee v. Koski and other lawsuits claiming the referendum was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argue the process was rushed and procedural rules were ignored, and Hurley pointed to those defects in his order. The litigation has put the referendum’s future squarely in the courts.
The ballot asked voters if they wanted a new congressional map that would “restore fairness” in elections. That language became a focal point for critics who said it nudged voters toward approval. Democratic House leader Don Scott explained the amendment’s pitch, saying in February it was “about leveling the playing field across the country. Republicans are gerrymandering maps to override the will of the voters,” Scott said, noting Texas, North Carolina and Missouri, while leaving out Democrat-friendly mid-cycle redistricting in California and Utah. Scott claimed a “10-1 map levels the playing field.”
Newly elected Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger originally said she wanted the redistricting commission to set maps but later signed the amendment, drawing accusations of a bait-and-switch from critics. Democrats defend the move as a response to national redistricting battles and an attempt to address partisan gerrymandering. Republicans see the shift as proof the process was politically driven.
Hurley cited procedural failures and “misleading” ballot language that he said improperly influenced voters. Attorney General Jay Jones said an appeal was coming immediately and criticized the judge’s intervention. “Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote. We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court,” Jones said.
Hurley had previously ruled against Democrats in a related suit, and the Virginia Supreme Court stepped in earlier to stay one of his blocks in March. “It is the process, not the outcome, of this effort that we may ultimately have to address,” the state’s highest court found at the time. “Issuing an injunction to keep Virginians from the polls is not the proper way to make this decision.”
The Virginia Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments to hear the disputes, and multiple suits may be consolidated because they raise overlapping legal points. “[The Virginia Supreme Court] has really been backed into a corner by this, and I think that they understand that they’re going to have to get an answer here very quickly, and I think that’s why they set oral argument in this case so soon after the referendum,” Jason Snead of the Honest Elections Project said. He added that “I think we’re going to get a ruling as soon as May.”
Snead highlighted Republican concerns about an allegedly extended special session and whether ballot language met statutory posting requirements. He also pointed to what Republicans call a lack of neutrality in how the amendment framed its purpose by saying it would “restore fairness.” These are the core issues the court will have to untangle as the calendar moves toward candidate filing deadlines.
The deadline for candidates to qualify for the ballot is May 26, which compresses the timeline for a final legal answer. Republicans are pushing for a swift ruling in state court rather than a drawn-out federal fight. For now, the map and the process that produced it remain in legal limbo as Virginia’s highest court prepares to weigh in.
https://x.com/MaryVought/status/2047298507669741770?s=20
