Virginia Democrats’ Gerrymander Hits a Legal Snag

Virginia Democrats’ attempt to redraw their state’s congressional maps in order to eliminate a number of Republican seats is hitting a serious legal challenge ahead of the planned statewide vote to approve the new district lines. On Thursday, a county judge ruled that the April statewide vote to either approve or reject the maps must be put on hold, citing potential violations of Virginia’s constitution. Virginia Democrats began the process of redistricting their state’s congressional map last year after Texas and other GOP-led states redrew their maps to ensure Republicans have a greater advantage in the U.S. House elections this November. California Democrats have also eliminated GOP-held seats in their state through a ballot initiative. The Virginia process is messier, however. The state’s constitution requires that any constitutional amendments be passed by two separate legislative sessions and then put to the voters to either approve or reject. The first constitutional amendment was passed last October, though that occurred during a special session to deal with the budget, which Republicans argue was contrary to the proper amendment procedure. After the legislature again passed the proposed constitutional amendment last month, Democrats were preparing for a statewide vote to approve the amendment allowing for the new maps. That vote was scheduled to be held on April 21, though that has now been put off after a county circuit judge granted Republicans’ preliminary injunction on Thursday. In a six-page order issued on Thursday, Tazewell County Circuit Chief Judge Jack Hurley ruled that Democrats’ gerrymandering efforts violated a number of requirements set forth by the state constitution. In Virginia, constitutional amendments must be put to the voters more than 90 days after the measure passes through the legislature. Because early voting in the statewide vote was due to begin in early March, Judge Hurley ruled that Democrats were violating the 90-day rule, considering the amendments passed through the house of delegates and the state senate just last month. Judge Hurley also found that Democrats’ passage of the amendment last October during a special session to deal with the budget is in violation of the constitutional amendment process. He writes in his order that the next time lawmakers can vote on the proposed amendment won’t be until 2027, which would obviously be after this year’s November midterm elections. He further writes that the ballot language Democrats are using for the statewide vote could be “misleading” for voters. On voters’ ballots, the yes-or-no question of whether or not to amend the constitution states that the goal of the amendment is to “restore fairness” by countering Republican-led states’ own gerrymandering efforts. Judge Hurley writes that the language is improper because “it would lead a voter to believe he or she were were doing something unfair by voting against the proposed amendment.” “[T]he court finds that Plaintiffs have an extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits,” Judge Hurley writes, justifying his grant of a preliminary injunction. The lawsuit was filed by the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee — which is charged to elect GOP lawmakers to the House — and two Republican members of Virginia’s congressional delegation, Congressman Ben Cline and Congressman Morgan Griffith. In a statement, the NRCC praised Judge Hurley’s ruling. “For a second time, the Virginia courts have ruled against Virginia Democrats’ partisan attempt to ignore their own Constitution and rig the system in their favor. This is a massive win in defending honest representation for every Virginian,” NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said Thursday. Even if the statewide vote is held and Democrats are successful in amending the constitution, Virginia’s supreme court could intervene after the fact and strike down the maps. In a ruling last week, the court said that it would allow parties to file briefs up until April 23 — two days after the statewide vote is scheduled to be held. If Democrats can overcome these challenges in court, they would likely guarantee that their party picks up four additional seats in the House. The delegation is currently divided between six Democrats and five Republicans, though Democrats’ new maps would leave only one solidly GOP district intact, while the other four would be redrawn in such a way that Vice President Kamala Harris would have won them in 2024.

Virginia Democrats’ Gerrymander Hits a Legal Snag

Virginia Democrats’ Gerrymander Hits a Legal Snag

More from the New York Sun

NYC Comptroller Mark Levine’s Broken Pledge on Israel Bonds Will Fuel BDS, Predecessor Tells the Sun

Exclusive: Selma Blair on Her Troubled Hollywood Post-October 7 Cancellation

What Would Advances by the Democrats Mean?

If Blakeman Takes Down Hochul, That Means Knocking Out Mamdani, Too

Microbiology Student Captured Trying To Flee to China After Allegedly Poisoning Colleague Over Coveted Technology Patents

Democrats Dismiss Idea El-Sayed Has a Problem With Black Voters as Rogers Hopes To Make Inroads

Mamdani Calls Blakeman a Racist After GOP Nominee for Governor Said the Mayor Was an Antisemite

Press Secretary Katie Zacharia Accused in Formal Complaint of Violating State Law by Lying About Her Legal Experience

More from the New York Sun

NYC Comptroller Mark Levine’s Broken Pledge on Israel Bonds Will Fuel BDS, Predecessor Tells the Sun

Exclusive: Selma Blair on Her Troubled Hollywood Post-October 7 Cancellation

What Would Advances by the Democrats Mean?

If Blakeman Takes Down Hochul, That Means Knocking Out Mamdani, Too

Microbiology Student Captured Trying To Flee to China After Allegedly Poisoning Colleague Over Coveted Technology Patents

Democrats Dismiss Idea El-Sayed Has a Problem With Black Voters as Rogers Hopes To Make Inroads

Mamdani Calls Blakeman a Racist After GOP Nominee for Governor Said the Mayor Was an Antisemite

Press Secretary Katie Zacharia Accused in Formal Complaint of Violating State Law by Lying About Her Legal Experience