One day after voters in Virginia narrowly approved a new congressional map expected to produce a 10–1 Democratic split in the state’s House delegation, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled the referendum to be unconstitutional, blocked certification of the results, and refused to pause the ruling during the appeal. This development sets the stage for a legal battle royale, leaving courts to determine the path forward.
Hurley found that the referendum violated several provisions of the state constitution. He was especially critical of how the question was presented to voters, calling it “flagrantly misleading.” He took particular issue with its portrayal of the new map as restoring fairness in upcoming elections, stating that this phrasing “did not accurately describe the proposed amendment.”
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?
Immediately after Hurley’s ruling, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said his office planned to file an appeal. “As I said last night, 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.”
After more than a year of “activist judges” using their positions to block President Donald Trump’s agenda, the remark strikes me as a bit rich.
Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, summed up the legal issues behind Hurley’s decision in a post on X.
THREE challenges to the amendment process itself:1️⃣ First passage was invalid. The amendment was taken up during a special session convened in 2024 for budget purposes. The General Assembly’s own call to the Governor (under Art. IV, §6 and Art. V, §5) and its governing resolution (HJR 6001) limited the session’s scope. Expanding it to include a constitutional amendment on redistricting required a two-thirds vote that never occurred. A Tazewell County judge found this action “void, ab initio.”2️⃣ Art. XII, §1 requires that after first passage, a proposed amendment be “referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates.” An election must intervene between first and second passage. Here, first passage occurred during an election cycle — not before an intervening one.3️⃣ Art. XII, §1 requires the amendment be submitted to voters “not sooner than ninety days after final passage by the General Assembly.” The timeline from second passage to the April 21 vote did not satisfy this requirement.Plus ONE challenge to the proposed maps:4️⃣ Art. II, §6 requires that “every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory.” The proposed congressional maps violate this contiguity requirement (rather badly).Next stop, court. Stay tuned.
The debate over whether the state Supreme Court will uphold or strike down Hurley’s challenges fell along party lines. Democrat strategist Adam Parkhomenko took to X to say he has “full confidence a higher court will overturn this nonsense quickly, and the will of Virginia voters will prevail.”
“Virginia voters spoke. MAGA lost,” he wrote. “And now a rogue Republican judge is trying to override the will of the people because they didn’t like the outcome. That’s not democracy. That’s desperation.”
“Nice try,” he added.
Republican National Committee chair Joe Gruters called the ruling a “major victory” for Virginians. He criticized the effort as a partisan maneuver, arguing that Democrats were trying to rewrite district lines for political advantage ahead of the midterms. He framed the court’s intervention as a necessary check and emphasized that election rules shouldn’t be changed in a way that benefits one party.
Gruters issued a statement which said, “Democrats attempted to force an unconstitutional scheme to tilt congressional maps in their favor, but the court recognized it for what it is – a blatant power grab.”
While it is true that Trump’s push for Texas to redraw its congressional map last summer set off the latest round of gerrymandering, Democrats have engaged in the practice aggressively for years. And their efforts have arguably boosted the party’s representation in Congress.
Finally, many Republicans are faulting party leaders for not spending enough money to get the word out about what was at stake in this referendum.
Democrats significantly outspent Republicans and, according to the X post below, most of the $70 million Democrats spent came from out of state.
This is especially frustrating given the closeness of the race.
Hurley’s ruling can be viewed here.
Stay tuned — legal action in this case could unfold quickly today.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY