Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Democrat Redistricting Referendum (Update: Dems May Seek SCOTUS Review)
“We hold that the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy”
Democrats in Virginia looked to pick up four congressional seats by a partisan gerrymandered map that passed the legislature and went to a referendum where it passed by a couple of points. Now the Virginia Supreme Court has stricken the referendum as not having followed Virginia constitutional requirements.
From the Opinion:
On March 6, 2026, the General Assembly of Virginia submitted to Virginia voters a proposed constitutional amendment that authorizes partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the Commonwealth. We hold that the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy.1
***
To us, it is common sense that the phrase “general election,” as used in the context of Article XII, Section 1, includes the combined actions of citizens casting votes and election officials receiving these votes and closing the polls on the last day of the election. The purpose of Article XII, Section 1 is to give voters the opportunity to participate in the process of amending their Constitution. It truly would be a foolish consistency if we insisted (and we do not) that the historical definition of “election” applies in exactly the same way to the plethora of different legal texts ensconced in different policy contexts. The dissent does just that with its inflexible, one-size-fits-all definition of “election” as a single 24-hour period, Election Day — the last day of voting. And that inflexibility, deployed by the Commonwealth in this case, ended up denying over 1.3 million Virginians their constitutional right to have a voice in the debate over whether their Constitution should be amended — thereby eroding one of the core rights that Article XII, Section 1 was intended to safeguard….
In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia.31 This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void. For this reason, the congressional district maps issued by this Court in 2021 pursuant to Article II, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia remain the governing maps for the upcoming 2026 congressional elections.
MORE TO FOLLOW
🚨 BREAKING: VIRGINIA DEMOCRAT GERRYMANDERING MAP OFFICIALLY DEAD
The State Supreme Court has *STRUCK DOWN* the Democrats' map that would've left only 1 GOP Congressional seat.
Virginia will remain a 6D-5R Congressional state.
LET'S GO!!!!!! 🔥
Huge backfire. Now the SOUTH… pic.twitter.com/uz1KSGVjGB
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 8, 2026
Democrats spent north of $80 million on the Virginia referendum.
Almost half of it came from Hakeem Jeffries' personal 501(c)4, House Majority Forward.
Louise Lucas, Don Scott, and Abigail Spanberger exerted so much of their political capital to get it passed.
All to be…
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 8, 2026
The dissent (the 3 Dem appointed Justices) are making arguments in dissent that not even the parties in the case made (I guess they don't think @jonesjay's legal team did an adequate job…) https://t.co/szeEHuaes7
— Ken Cuccinelli II (@KenCuccinelli) May 8, 2026
Justice has been served. From the beginning, this was the most obvious violation of Virginia’s Constitution. Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in Richmond knowingly violated our constitution to disenfranchise millions of Virginians.
The Constitution prevailed, and Virginians will… https://t.co/WkoEwhMPOH
— Glenn Youngkin (@GlennYoungkin) May 8, 2026
Narrator: It will stand. https://t.co/CzCZsinlrn
— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) May 8, 2026
More than three million Virginians cast their ballots in Virginia’s redistricting referendum, and the majority of Virginia voters voted to push back against a President who said he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress with a temporary and responsive referendum. They…
— Governor Abigail Spanberger (@GovernorVA) May 8, 2026
UPDATE
I can’t see why SCOTUS would take a case where a state supreme court has ruled on state procedure for amending the state constitution. There aren’t any legitimate federal issues here.
🚨 Virginia Democrats indicate that they will appeal today's ruling invalidating the redistricting referendum to the United States Supreme Court.
They ask the Virginia Supreme Court to withhold its mandate. pic.twitter.com/RUHVSSUT4u
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) May 8, 2026
================
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt!
FA meet FO.
How obviously unconstitutional does something have to be for the Virginia Freakin’ Supreme Court to shoot down?
This freakin’ unconstitutional.
A gathering of six year olds on a sugar high could have figured this one out.
Thing is that this could actually wind up backfiring on the Democrats in November if the Rs are sufficiently angered by this blatant attempt to disenfranchise 2/3d of the state.
And I’m not entirely convinced that the proposal to reabsorb the Fairfax County area back into DC is a bad idea. It seems like the incentive to self-deal is just too strong.
“And I’m not entirely convinced that the proposal to reabsorb the Fairfax County area back into DC is a bad idea. It seems like the incentive to self-deal is just too strong.”
I’ve seen this idea flown elsewhere. I’d like someone to explain to me how this could possibly be legal. The Constitution allowed for the creation of a seat of government upon land voluntarily ceded by one or more States. This is how land from Virginia and Maryland were initially acquired to create the District of Columbia, a place where no State government can interfere with Congress and its business.
However, Congress decided it did not need Virginia’s portion of the District, and returned said portion to the State. That portion of the State is now as much part of Virginia as it was before Virginia voluntarily ceded it to Congress for use as part of the seat of the federal government. How can it possibly be taken back without Virginia’s consent?
Rather, what should be considered is returning residential portions of the District back to Maryland, curing the problem of the residents’ lack of congressional representation without the creation of two new (Democrat) seats in the Senate. The possible creation of a new House seat (for Maryland) would be a small price to pay in order to prevent the creation of two liberal seats in the Senate. I believe defusing the “Statehood for D.C.” demand is worth this cost. The best option, which is maintaining the status quo, is not guaranteed. (Suggesting this solution to the representation problem would also cause liberal heads to explode and they would resist it, exposing the fact their support for D.C. statehood is driven by a thirst for power and that the residents of D.C. are merely poster children being used to help them get that power.)
It’s not Fairfax County, it’s Arlington County. The argument for retaking Arlington is that it’s return to Virginia was through Presidential proclamation, not through an Act of Congress; and that what one President can do, another can undo.
Like you, though, I question the wisdom of taking back Arlington County and like you, I think the residential portions of DC should be returned to Maryland.
That is just not true.
This is not the first time I’ve seen someone on this forum making this claim. Where is this misinformation coming from?
The problem with retrocession back to MD is the US Constitution was amended to give DC 3 electoral votes, and that would still be in place.
The 23rd Amendment actually leaves it up to Congress to decide how those 3 electoral votes are allocated. Nothing there requires it to be as a result of a DC election, Congress could think of a more fair way to allocate those votes after most of the district has been returned to Maryland.
The electoral votes would follow the population. If the county was given back to either VA or MD then a redistricting would result following each states constitution. Congress could vote to override the states and force them to do it in that extraordinary circumstance I think.
Not really. MD would indeed get one extra elector (and one representative) out of it, but DC would still have its 3 electors. The only way to change that would be to repeal the 23A. But as I pointed out in my answer to The_Mew_Cat, Congress can decide that those electorships should remain vacant.
Nothing requires DC to fill its three quota of electors. A state is free to decide not to choose electors, and thus not to participate in the presidential election. So in the same act that Congress passes to give the residential parts of DC back to MD, it can decide that those three electorships shall remain vacant.
It’s not at all obvious. Good arguments could be made for either side, so an honest court could have decided it either way. I’m glad the court decided for us, but the other side have good reason to feel disappointed. They had a good argument but the majority of the court didn’t buy it.
Let me ask you, if the parties had been reversed, if it were Republicans arguing that the word “election” in a constitution means Election Day, the Tuesday after November 1st, and the Democrats were arguing that it meant the entire voting season, from when the first ballots are mailed until the last ones come in, would you still think it was “freakin’ obvious”, even to “a gathering of six year olds on a sugar high”, that it means the entire voting season, and thus find for the Democrats? Or would you suddenly find it obvious that it means one day, because that was the argument that helped us?
It’s a stupid idea because Congress can’t change a state’s boundaries without its legislature’s consent, and there’s no way a Dem-controlled VA legislature would agree to it.
Now if you ever got Rs in charge of both houses of both the federal and VA legislatures, with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, then you could do it, but that’s not likely to happen.
Conservatives may well be motivated. Whether the GOP does squat? That’s another issue.
As a fellow Virginian, I don’t like to let the GOP off the hook. However, I think (but don’t know) that they funded the legal challenges. Perhaps, they knew they already had this in their hip pocket once the ballot language was drawn. One can only hope they had that kind of foresight.
If so, it was a great way to get the Dems to waste some money.
Wasting over $80 million is such sweet revenge. I love it because the DNC will now face serious fundraising challenges as the midterm campaigns progress. The verified fact that both Obama and Jeffries (Obama 2.0) tried to influence the vote on this referendum and celebrated their actions on voting night shows that Obama’s glory days are truly over and behind him.
my bad on the thumbs down
thumbs up to ya!
Democrats are incontrovertible liars and undeniable hypocrites. If lawfare and redistricting are used against them, then social unrest, civic disruption and violence are their responses. In other words, “riot like it’s 1999.” (Hat tip Prince)
South Carolina’s upcoming redistricting vote presents an opportunity for the GOP to build on its recent consecutive victories in Florida and Tennessee.
Watching Cohen (TN) whine yesterday about losing his seat, and better yet, the insufferable Jamed Clyburn (SC) who might also lose his seat, along with Jasmine Crockett (TX), who lost, and the cane-carrying moron facing a run-off election later in May, the totally inept, belligerent Al Green (TX), are satisfying sights for my weary eyes.
These people don’t know when to shut up because they make a case for ousting their incompetence involuntarily just by flapping their gums.
More good news from my home state. They are currently debating 4 new maps, and only one holds a majority black seat. One completely eliminates the majority black district entirely. 2 turn a majority black seat to white.
I think it’s down to 1 or 4. I don’t mind 4.
https://www.wdsu.com/article/louisiana-legislators-four-congressional-map-options/71244439
They will miss that 80 mil come October.
So Virginia isn’t completely lost. And if we can further purge government workers from NoVa, maybe VA can be purple again.
Yes!!! Disperse them far and wide!
A victory for the rule of law.
Frankly I’m shocked at this ruling. But TBF if they had not made this ruling on this point, the next challenge would have been early voting, since it’s an “election day.” Not election 2 months.
That was the Democrats’ argument. The Republicans’ argument, which the court majority adopted, was that it is indeed an election season, and not one day.
So does this mean you agree with the Democrats? It’s not an unreasonable position, but our position is also not unreasonable, so I would generally expect a Republican to prefer our position to theirs, all other things being equal. Unless you think their position is clearly the better one.
its a start
now how does one enforce the courts pro american order?
when the left is known for cheating being a normal justifiable action on their part?
send in the troops!!
Huh?! The decision enforces itself. The constitutional amendment was not passed correctly, so the constitution remains as it was, and thus the new map that depended on the amendment was not adopted and the old map is still in place. No enforcement is needed; the old map is an established fact.
Democrats, those with hair, are pulling it out. Meanwhile Hakeem is threatening violence to the very end.
The Virginia SC decision was 4-3. One judge. One judge made the decision to do what is right, just, legal and constitutional. One judge saved the Republic, at least for now.
Watch for doxing and violence to commence, and the leftists do that, arrest and charge them.
— Hakeem Jeffries
— Isoroku Yamamoto
Yeah. I’m hoping this little episode of The Twilight Zone will provide Virginia GOP voters with a much-needed kick in the ass. Is it hopium?
I love the Professor’s response to Temu Obama. Perfect!
I’m actually surprised. Not that this was unconstitutional as that was obvious enough that anyone could see it. I’m surprised that the VA supreme court recognized it and actually ruled according to the law rather than politics..
It was not obvious. It was an open question what “election” means in this context, and either decision would have been reasonable. I’m glad the majority saw things our way, but the minority also acted in good faith.
They will do it again for the 2028 election. They have enough time to do it properly. However, all Virginia legislators still have to stand for election in 2027.
The d/prog will almost certainly TRY to do it again and they have a good, if not entirely certain, chance at getting it past voters. I suspect some voters may not support this the second time around. Your point about legislative elections is well taken considering the near even split to slight GoP majority very recently in a purple State that leans blue. Then there’s the potential impact of some of those DC based Fed employees and contractors being pushed out and spread into the heart land which dilutes their impact on VA.
Frankly, I’m surprised the VA Supreme Court had the backbone but I think the case laid out in the lawsuit was so clear it could not be ignored. Remember, this whole redistricting debacle started with Newsomes hysterical response to Texas following their Constitution and doing a mid term redistricting.
The case was not clear. Both interpretations of “election” in this context were reasonable, and a reasonable court could have found either way.
“Appellants and the Commonwealth intend to file an Emergency Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States”.
It doesn’t even suggest what possible grounds such a petition could have. This is entirely a matter of state law, interpreting a word in the state constitution, so the state supreme court is the highest and last word on the matter. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.