On April 21, Virginia voters narrowly approved a referendum to let the Democratic-controlled General Assembly redraw the state’s congressional map, replacing districts drawn by the bipartisan commission voters themselves created in 2020 by a huge 2-to-1 margin. The margin on this week’s referendum was slim: roughly 51.5 percent to 48.5 percent. But the vote, as dramatic as it was, is not the final chapter. Three lawsuits, raising four different (state) constitutional challenges, are already pending in the courts. And the institution that will ultimately decide whether this referendum will stand is not the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Any challenges here are squarely rooted in the Virginia Constitution — specifically, whether the General Assembly followed Virginia’s own rules for amending the Constitution. This fight starts and ends in Richmond.
The first two challenges, already before the Virginia Supreme Court, concern the process by which the amendment was first adopted on October 31, 2025. The Virginia Constitution requires a specific two-step process for amendments in Article XII, Section 1. A proposed amendment must first be adopted by both chambers of the General Assembly, after which mid-term elections must take place. After those interim elections and a second passage during the subsequent session, the amendment is presented to the voters.
TOP MARYLAND DEMOCRAT AGAINST JEFFRIES ON MID-CYCLE REDISTRIBUTION TO BRING UP THE STATE’S LONE REPUBLIC
The challengers claim that two violations occurred regarding the amendment’s first passage. The first passage did not take place during an actual session of the General Assembly. It took place during a special session originally called in 2024 by then-Governor Youngkin to discuss a budget dispute. The “Yes” men argue that the session was never technically adjourned – it was kept open for almost two years – and that Democrats took advantage of this to pass the redistricting amendment. Opponents argue that this exceeded the scope of the special session’s call, which was limited to budget issues. Expanding it to a constitutional amendment on redistricting would have required a two-thirds majority, which never occurred. A Tazewell County Circuit judge agreed, declaring the action “void, ab initio” — void from the outset — under Article IV, Section 6, and Article V, Section 5, of the Virginia Constitution.
The second procedural challenge goes to the heart of Article XII’s timing requirements. Because the first passage occurred during the 2025 elections and not before the general election, challengers argue that no intervening elections occurred between the first and second passages. The whole point of the interim election requirement is to give voters a voice — a chance to influence the lawmakers who will cast the decisive second vote. That democratic guarantee, opponents say, has been circumvented.
By the time of the first passage on October 31, 2025, more than a million Virginians had already voted in the 2025 election – the same election that the “Yes” men want to legally treat as the required “interim election.”
A third challenge was heard today in Tazewell County Circuit Court. At issue is the mandate of Article The question is simple: have ninety days actually passed between the second passage and the start of voting on the referendum? Challengers say that is not the case, and that this is not a technical issue – it is a clear constitutional requirement.
The second passage took place on January 19, 2026. Open voting in the 45-day Virginia elections began on March 6, 2026. You do the math. The last day of voting was Tuesday, April 21, so the “Yes” guys will argue that what counts is that 90 days have passed between the second passage and Election Day – April 21. The judge in Tazewell today ruled that the 90-day requirement had not been met, and therefore, at the time of writing, ordered the referendum to be certified. Like all other cases, this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
The fourth challenge focuses on the proposed map itself. A hearing was held in Richmond Circuit Court on Monday and a ruling is pending. Challengers argue that the proposed congressional districts violate Article II, Section 6, of the Virginia Constitution, which requires that “every electoral district shall consist of contiguous and compact territory.” The compactness challenge is separate from the procedural claims—even if the amendment survives Article XII challenges, the maps must still pass constitutional muster on their own terms. And these may be the most extremely gerrymandered maps in modern Virginia history.
So, what’s next? Based on old Virginia precedent, the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the vote to proceed, but made it clear that it would deal with the constitutional questions afterward. The briefings have been submitted or will be submitted shortly. The rulings of the Tazewell and Richmond courts will certainly be appealed, sending everything to the same seven judges in Richmond.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
If the Virginia Supreme Court rejects the amendment on any of the three procedural grounds, the referendum result will be declared invalid. The bipartisan commission’s maps would remain in effect for 2026 and beyond. If the court upholds the amendment process but strikes down the maps on grounds of compactness, the General Assembly would likely have to draft new, less extreme maps. And if the court upholds everything, the new Democratic-chosen districts would reshape Virginia’s congressional delegation heading into the 2026 midterm elections.
The Virginia Constitution has rules about how it can be changed, and those rules are there to prevent the kind of hasty, extreme rewrites that have occurred here. Now it’s up to the Virginia Supreme Court to decide whether the process that led to this referendum followed — or broke — those rules. Stay informed!
CLICK HERE TO BY KEN CUCCINELLI
