The Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday morning in one of three pending challenges to Democrats’ redistricting plan, which voters approved during a special election last week.
The state’s highest court now must decide: Was the redistricting election — and the new congressional map voters supported — illegitimate on technical grounds?
During the proceedings, Democrats argued that the court should not nullify the will of the voters.
“It would be patently unfair to override the people’s vote because of a concern that they had not gotten the opportunity to voice their opinion months earlier,” Virginia Solicitor General Tillman J. Breckenridge told the court.
During the arguments, the Virginia Supreme Court focused on Republican claims that Democratic lawmakers violated certain procedural rules in passing the redistricting constitutional amendment they put on the ballot.
While two vocal justices during Monday’s proceedings sounded skeptical of Democrats’ arguments, the court previously signaled some receptiveness to their claims when it ruled that the special election could proceed while the litigation was still ongoing.
That could be a positive sign for Democrats, as courts are typically reluctant to void the will of voters.
But Republicans made the case Monday that the Virginia legislature failed to comply with the process prescribed in the state constitution when passing the redistricting constitutional amendment.
Specifically, Republicans challenged Democrats’ decision to reconvene an already open special session and alleged they failed to hold an intervening election before passing the proposed amendment for a second time — both requirements of the Virginia Constitution.
They also alleged that local officials failed to publish notice of the proposed amendment 90 days before the November general election, an element only Republicans contend is required by state law.
A lower court previously sided with Republicans. But Democrats quickly appealed, and the Virginia Supreme Court paused that ruling pending the outcome of the special election.
Attorney Matthew Seligman, representing Democratic lawmakers, opened arguments Monday morning by making the case that Virginia voters had approved the proposed constitutional amendment, effectively ratifying the new 10-1 map for the 2026 midterms.
Seligman also pushed back on Republicans’ efforts to invalidate the election based on alleged procedural violations of the General Assembly’s rules. Democrats have consistently argued that the courts do not have the authority to enforce the legislature’s own rules.
Justices pressed Seligman and Solicitor General Breckenridge on whether the special session had been lawfully reopened. The Democrats’ attorneys argued that, because a previously called special session was still active when the proposed amendment passed on Oct. 31, and election day for the intervening election occurred on Nov. 4, the proposed amendment was lawfully passed.
Above all, Breckenridge stressed, the court should not invalidate the will of Virginia voters, even if it concludes procedural violations occurred.
Last week, Virginia voters decided to move forward with Democrats’ proposed 10-1 map, allowing the state to redraw its congressional lines in a direct response to President Donald Trump’s GOP gerrymanders in other states.
If implemented, the new congressional map could give Democrats up to four more seats in Congress and effectively neutralize seats the GOP is likely to gain through gerrymanders in Texas, North Carolina, Missouri and possibly Florida.
But in order for Virginia’s new map to be implemented for the 2026 midterm elections, it must survive the courts.
Though important, the case heard Monday is not the only obstacle standing in the way of Democrats’ redistricting plan. Two additional lawsuits filed by Republicans also remain pending.
In one case, a circuit court declined to block the new map’s implementation in a GOP challenge to its “compactness,” a requirement that districts not have overly unusual shapes.
“In these early stages of the proceedings, evidence suggests the election and the proceedings leading to it were conducted in conformance” with state law, the circuit court concluded.
The third lawsuit, now set to be reviewed by the Virginia Supreme Court after a Tazewell County judge blocked state officials from certifying the results of the referendum, focuses on procedural challenges largely similar to the ones in the case heard this morning.
In other words, a ruling on the case heard Monday will likely address the concerns raised in the third lawsuit blocking election certification across the state.
