In a blow to Democrats, the Supreme Court of Virginia has declined to pause a lower court ruling that blocks election officials from certifying the results of last week’s redistricting special election, as the justices weigh whether to nullify the vote for good.
Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment implementing a new congressional map proposed by Democrats last week during a statewide vote.
On April 22, a day after the vote, a judge in conservative Tazewell County ruled that the constitutional amendment was invalid and blocked state and local officials from certifying the results of the redistricting referendum. Democrats quickly appealed the ruling to the state supreme court.
If enacted, the new congressional map could give Democrats up to four more seats in Congress and allow them to nullify seats Republicans will likely gain from gerrymanders pushed by President Donald Trump in Republican-controlled states.
The Tazewell County case is just one of three pending challenges to the redistricting referendum, which began months before the actual vote.
On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a separate, yet similar challenge in which Republicans allege that Democratic lawmakers violated procedural rules when passing the redistricting constitutional amendment they ultimately placed on the ballot.
But that case raises a bigger question: Should the court overturn election on procedural grounds after it has taken place? Democrats argue no.
“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 those proceedings, two justices sounded skeptical of Democrats’ arguments. However, the court had previously signaled some receptiveness to their claims when it ruled that the special election could go forward while the litigation was still ongoing.
Now, the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Tazewell injunction against certifying the election results to remain in place raises concerns that the court could still void the vote.
In a third case challenging the map itself, a circuit court last week rejected GOP claims that the map violated “compactness” requirements stipulating that districts not have overly unusual shapes.
This is a developing story.
