An upcoming referendum on whether to allow the Democrat majority in the Virginia legislature to redraw congressional maps may not be the end of the matter.
Voters in the commonwealth on April 21 will consider a state constitutional amendment to temporarily suspend the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission until after the 2030 Census, allowing for partisan gerrymandering ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The Democrat-controlled legislature is poised to approve a map that would shift the state from six Democrats and five Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to 10 Democrats and one Republican.
Four members of Congress from Virginia are challenging the redrawn maps.
But their challenge could be an uphill climb, since courts often give wide latitude to legislators on redistricting, said Daniel Ortiz, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
“The U.S. Supreme Court in the not-too-distant past has turned down challenges from Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California over partisan gerrymandering,” Ortiz told The Daily Signal.
Unlike the Texas and California cases, where challengers cited federal law, the Virginia cases focus on state laws, Ortiz noted. That likely means the Virginia Supreme Court will have the final say.
The Virginia Supreme Court allowed the referendum to proceed earlier this month but declined to rule on the legality of the proposed maps until after the election.
This overturned a lower court ruling in a case brought by the Republican National Committee and two Virginia Republican members of Congress, Reps. Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith, who sought to halt the referendum.
A Tazewell County Circuit Court judge ruled in January that the state legislature did not follow the law when it approved the referendum during a special session. The court’s injunction on the referendum was overturned, but the state’s high court could still decide the case on the merits.
In a separate case, U.S. Reps. John McGuire and Rob Wittman filed a challenge in the Richmond City Circuit Court alleging the ballot question, which states the new map seeks to “restore fairness,” is deceptive and constitutes viewpoint discrimination.
“The Supreme Court will weigh in one way or another,” Ortiz said. “All the challenges are based on state laws, so it will likely stop there. That’s not to say a talented lawyer won’t try to argue that the map violates federal law, given the high stakes.”
