Virginia Democrats Seek Judicial Support for Redistricting Strategy
In a bid to secure four additional congressional seats, Virginia Democrats are pressing forward with their plans for gerrymandering, but they find themselves needing the endorsement of the state’s highest court.
Following a ruling from a lower court that halted their attempts to amend the state Constitution and redraw federal congressional lines ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, the Virginia Court of Appeals has asked the Virginia Supreme Court to step in.
This situation now places the outcome of the congressional map—and possibly the balance of power after the 2026 midterms—into the hands of justices whose decisions can often be unpredictable.
Political analysts in Virginia characterize the state Supreme Court as generally non-ideological, often described as “small-c conservative,” favoring tradition and established legal precedents over rulings that align strictly with right-wing ideologies. Many observers believe the court prefers to avoid entanglement in political disputes, yet this case seems too significant to ignore.
“There’s a long-standing tradition within the state Supreme Court to sidestep political issues whenever possible,” noted Carolyn Fiddler from the Democratic Attorneys General Association, a William & Mary Law School alumna with a background in state politics. “This will be a fascinating test of that tradition.”
Virginia is one of just two states where Supreme Court justices are elected by the legislature, a process that has fostered a compromise-driven balance, especially given the state’s history of divided governance over the last twenty-five years. The current court comprises seven justices, including one appointed during a period of Democratic dominance, three during Republican control, and three from when the legislature was split.
“I cast my vote for each of these justices and believe none are overly political, nor should they be,” asserted Del. Terry Kilgore (R), the Virginia House of Delegates Minority Leader, expressing confidence that the court will rule in favor of his party. “They should simply adhere to the law. If they do, we emerge victorious.”
The central question facing the Virginia Supreme Court is not whether new maps will be implemented, but rather when they can take effect—and whether these changes will be in place for this year’s midterm elections.
Last week, Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) enacted legislation scheduling a statewide referendum for April 21, asking voters to empower state lawmakers to redraw federal congressional lines promptly. This announcement followed the unveiling of proposed maps by Democratic state lawmakers aimed at skewing the congressional representation to a 10-1 advantage, effectively granting Democrats four additional House seats while leaving just one Republican in the federal delegation.
However, their aspirations faced a setback when a circuit court judge in Tazewell County ruled that the Democrats had not adhered to the correct procedures for initiating a constitutional amendment.
Altering the Virginia Constitution is a complex process that demands approval from two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly, with a statewide general election for the House of Delegates occurring in between those sessions.
Judge Jack Hurley determined that the early voting period had already begun when the General Assembly initially passed the amendment last October, rendering it invalid as the first step. If the Virginia Supreme Court concurs, the earliest new maps could be enacted would be after the next legislative election in 2027—a significant blow to Democratic hopes of regaining the House in the upcoming fall elections.
This is a matter both parties are eager for the court to resolve swiftly.
“If they conclude that there wasn’t an intervening election—which is the crucial point—the redistricting will effectively be off the table,” explained former Del. Tim Anderson (R), who also practices law. “Conversely, if they rule that there was indeed an intervening election, then the amendment for redistricting will proceed.”
The court’s next available slot for hearing new cases is March 2, a narrow timeframe as it coincides with the onset of early voting.
Jay O’Keeffe, a left-leaning appellate attorney from Roanoke who has presented cases before the court, noted that it is not unusual for justices to reference Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” an 18th-century text frequently utilized by those who interpret the law with an originalist and conservative lens.
“The justices I’ve encountered don’t perceive themselves as political figures,” O’Keeffe mentioned. “However, one can envision a more progressive court that might approach their role in a different manner.”
Ultimately, both Democrats and Republicans are keenly awaiting the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision on whether the April referendum can proceed.
“In situations like this, the Supreme Court typically aims to maintain neutrality, avoiding politically charged decisions,” remarked Steve Emmert, a retired appellate lawyer. “What both parties require now is clarity, and they need it promptly.”
