Virginia Judge Voids Redistricting Plan, Rules Lawmakers Exceeded Authority

A Virginia circuit court judge has struck down a redistricting amendment approved by the state’s General Assembly, ruling that lawmakers exceeded their authority and violated constitutional requirements during a 2024 special legislative session.

In a comprehensive ruling issued Tuesday, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack S. Hurley Jr. invalidated actions taken to advance the proposed constitutional amendment, effectively blocking it from moving forward and preventing it from being submitted to voters in upcoming elections.

The case centered on whether Virginia lawmakers could legitimately introduce a redistricting-related constitutional amendment during a special session that was initially called to address budget matters. The lawsuit questioned whether the General Assembly followed its own procedural rules when expanding the scope of that session.

“Certainly, both houses of the Commonwealth’s legislature are required to follow their own rules and resolutions,” Judge Hurley wrote in his decision.

The court found that lawmakers improperly added redistricting to the list of issues allowed during the special session without securing the required unanimous consent or supermajority vote as stipulated in their own procedural guidelines. This procedural failure rendered the joint resolution proposing changes to how congressional and legislative districts are drawn invalid, as it fell outside the boundaries lawmakers themselves established when the special session was called.

The decision represents a significant setback for Democrats in the state, who had hoped the amendment might help them secure additional congressional seats through redistricting changes. The ruling highlights the importance of procedural compliance in legislative actions, particularly those involving constitutional amendments.

Judge Hurley’s ruling addressed multiple legal issues, including the critical question of when an election officially occurs under Virginia law. The court rejected arguments that an election happens only on Election Day itself rather than including the early voting period. This distinction proved crucial, as more than one million Virginians had already cast ballots in the 2025 House of Delegates elections before lawmakers voted on the amendment.

“For this Court to find the election was only on November 4, 2025, those one million Virginia voters would be completely disenfranchised,” Hurley noted in his opinion.

Additionally, the ruling found that lawmakers failed to comply with Virginia state law requiring proposed constitutional amendments to be publicly posted and published ahead of the next election. Because these mandatory notification steps were not taken, the court determined that votes cast during the 2026 regular session could not count as the constitutionally required second approval of the amendment.

This case highlights ongoing tensions nationwide regarding redistricting processes, which have significant implications for political representation and electoral outcomes. Redistricting battles have intensified across the country as both parties vie for advantageous district boundaries ahead of upcoming elections.

Virginia’s redistricting process has been particularly contentious in recent years. In 2020, voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan redistricting commission aimed at reducing partisan gerrymandering. The latest proposed amendment represented an attempt to further modify this system.

The ruling establishes important precedent regarding the limits on legislative power during special sessions and underscores the importance of following constitutionally mandated procedures when proposing amendments to the state constitution. Judge Hurley issued both temporary and permanent injunctions blocking further action on the amendment, effectively halting its progression.

Legal experts suggest this ruling could impact how the General Assembly approaches special sessions in the future, potentially requiring more careful attention to procedural requirements and constitutional limitations. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to intervene when legislators fail to follow established rules governing constitutional changes.

State officials have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court. Any appeal would need to address the multiple procedural deficiencies identified in Judge Hurley’s comprehensive ruling.