Share
News

Virginia Supreme Court Denies Dem Request for Redistricting Vote to Be Certified as Case Proceeds

Share

The Virginia Supreme Court offered a potentially good indication that it will find the state redistricting referendum that passed last week unconstitutional.

Virginians voted on April 21, approximately 51.7 percent to 48.3 percent, to allow the redrawing of the state’s congressional districts, taking the current party breakdown from a 6-5 Democrat-Republican split to a potential 10-1 Democratic Party advantage.

However, a legal case brought by Republicans challenging the constitutionality of the process used to put the referendum on the ballot had already been in the court system for months.

Further, on April 22, Wednesday, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley issued an injunction, concluding, “Any and all votes for or against the proposed constitutional amendment in the April 21, 2026, special election are ineffective.” The judge wrote that the referendum question was void “ab initio” — Latin for “from the beginning.”

The ruling blocked the state Board of Elections from certifying the referendum results, according to WRIC-TV in Richmond.

On Tuesday, the Virginia Supreme Court denied an emergency request by Democratic officials to stay the injunction.

Former Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli posted on X in response, “In the ‘tea leaves’ category, this is as positive a ‘tea leaf’ as one might imagine!”

“If #SCOVA thought they would let the referendum stand, then logically they would have lifted the injunction on counting & certifying the votes,” he added. “Caveat: this is still just tea leaves, but it’s a good sign.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley reemphasized Cuccinelli’s caveat, but also noted the challenges Democrats are facing.

In a post on the social media platform X, he wrote, “As he notes, that is not a ruling on the merits, as we await the court’s decision. In order to uphold the new map, the Supreme Court will have to reject a myriad of flaws in the language and process behind the gerrymandering.”

Related:
Ron DeSantis Unveils Florida Congressional Map That Could Give Republicans a Big Boost in the Redistricting War

Justices did not give a clear indication of how they will vote during oral arguments on Monday. WRIC pointed out that at least some of the seven justices “do not view the ‘yes’ vote as determinative and have technical questions about the redistricting process.”

Fox News reported that Justice Wesley Russell’s first question to Democrat attorneys Matthew Seligman and Richard Hawkins “was whether the vote Tuesday in which the ‘Yes’ camp won even mattered in a legal setting.”

Cuccinelli told Fox the justice “got counsel for the defendants to concede ‘no the vote outcome does not matter.'”

Following last week’s vote, Cuccinelli published a social media post that listed four constitutional issues where the referendum was legally flawed and predicted to CNN’s Jake Tapper that the Virginia Supreme Court would vote 7-0 to strike it down.

In the post, he first noted the referendum seeks to change the congressional districts through a constitutional amendment, but the amendment was taken up during a special legislative session to address the budget last fall, which was not allowed under Virginia law.

“Expanding it to include a constitutional amendment on redistricting required a two-thirds vote that never occurred,” Cuccinelli wrote.

Second, the amendment must be approved by two separate votes of the legislature, with an election between the votes. Early voting in last fall’s election was already underway when the proposed amendment passed the legislature.

Additionally, Cuccinelli wrote that the Virginia Constitution requires “every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory,” explaining the “proposed congressional maps violate this contiguity requirement (rather badly).”

The new map would create multiple districts that originate in Democrat-heavy northern Virginia around Washington, D.C., and extend south.

Finally, the Virginia Constitution requires “the amendment be submitted to voters ‘not sooner than ninety days after final passage by the General Assembly.’ The timeline from the second passage to the April 21 vote did not satisfy this requirement,” Cuccinelli wrote.

Choose The Western Journal as your preferred source on Google and never miss reporting that defends truth, protects freedom, and advances Western civilization

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.

Submit a Correction →



Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Randy DeSoto has written more than 4,000 articles for The Western Journal since he began with the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths" and screenwriter of the political documentary "I Want Your Money."
Randy DeSoto wrote and was the assistant producer of the documentary film "I Want Your Money" about the perils of Big Government, comparing the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Randy is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths," which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence at defining moments in our nation's history. He has been published in several political sites and newspapers.

Randy graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point with a BS in political science and Regent University School of Law with a juris doctorate.
Birthplace
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Nationality
American
Honors/Awards
Graduated dean's list from West Point
Education
United States Military Academy at West Point, Regent University School of Law
Books Written
We Hold These Truths
Professional Memberships
Virginia and Pennsylvania state bars
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Languages Spoken
English
Topics of Expertise
Politics, Entertainment, Faith




Share
Tags:
, , ,

Conversation