In a referendum that passed by just over half of those who voted, Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment that would let the Democratic Party redraw the state’s congressional districts with a ten‑to‑one advantage. Republicans have denounced the measure as a blatant gerrymander and have challenged its legality in a series of lawsuits now before the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Legal challenges and procedural disputes
The amendment was presented on the ballot as an effort "to restore fairness in the upcoming elections," a description that the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and Virginia Representatives Ben Cline (R) and Morgan Griffith (R) have called misleading. A lower court has already ruled that the political manoeuvres used to place the question on the ballot were illegal and that the wording was deceptive.
The crux of the lawsuits is the way Democrats used a special session, originally convened to consider a budget bill, to draft the amendment. Republicans argue that expanding the session’s scope without the constitutionally required two‑thirds supermajority was unlawful. Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack S. Hurley Jr. described the expansion as "invalid" because the supermajority threshold was not met. In addition, state law mandates that a constitutional amendment be published at least three months before an election; the Democrats failed to meet that deadline.
Political stakes and reactions
Democrats contend that the amendment is needed to ensure fair representation, while Republicans maintain that it would hand the Democratic Party disproportionate control over the redistricting process. The bipartisan commission currently tasked with drawing districts is evenly split between the two parties, but the amendment would tilt the balance to a ten‑to‑one Democratic advantage.
Governor Abigail Spanberger (D) has emerged as a prominent backer of the measure, despite having warned in 2019 that gerrymandering was "detrimental to our democracy" and should be a bipartisan priority. She now argues that the amendment is essential for achieving equitable representation in Virginia.
Supreme Court hearing
The case has been fast‑tracked to the Supreme Court of Virginia, with oral arguments scheduled to begin on Monday. The court’s ruling could shape the configuration of Virginia’s congressional districts and influence the balance of power in the General Assembly.
The Honest Elections Project, which has filed an amicus brief, maintains that the referendum was illegal because it was passed through an "unlawful special session." Executive director Jason Snead described the amendment as an attempt to "steamroll any provision of the laws or constitution of the state of Virginia."
Both parties acknowledge that the outcome will be closely watched, as it may set a precedent for how states handle redistricting reforms and the procedural requirements for constitutional amendments.