Virginia Supreme Court strikes down Democrats' redrawn US House maps,
giving Republicans a win
[May 09, 2026]
By DAVID A. LIEB and GEOFF MULVIHILL
The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved
Democratic congressional redistricting plan, delivering another major
setback to the party in a nationwide battle against Republicans for an
edge in this year's midterm elections.
The court ruled 4-3 that the state's Democratic-led legislature violated
procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional amendment on
the ballot to authorize mid-decade redistricting. Voters narrowly
approved the amendment on April 21, but the court's ruling renders the
vote’s result meaningless.
Writing for the majority, Justice D. Arthur Kelsey wrote that the
legislature submitted the proposed constitutional amendment to voters
“in an unprecedented manner.”
“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting
referendum vote and renders it null and void,” he wrote.
Democrats had hoped to win as many as four additional U.S. House seats
under Virginia's redrawn map as part of an attempt to offset Republican
redistricting done elsewhere at the urging of President Donald Trump.
Later Friday, Virginia Democrats said in a filing that they intended to
file an emergency appeal of the state high court's decision with the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday's ruling, combined with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that
severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, has supercharged Republicans'
congressional gerrymandering advantage heading into this year's midterm
elections.
“Huge win for the Republican Party, and America, in Virginia,” Trump
said about the decision on his social media account.
Richard Hudson, chairman of the National Republican Congressional
Committee, said the ruling was another sign of GOP momentum heading into
the midterms.
“We’re on offense, and we’re going to win,” he said in a statement.
Don Scott, the Democratic speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates,
said Democrats respect the court’s opinion but lamented that it
overturned the will of the voters: “They voted YES because they wanted
to fight back against the Trump power grab.”
Suzan DelBene, chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee, criticized the court majority for what she said was a
decision that “cast aside the will of the voters,” but she said the
people will have the final say.
“In November, they will, and they’ll power Democrats to the House
majority,” she said in a statement.
A longshot Democratic appeal
Democrats are taking a legal longshot in asking the nation’s highest
court to reverse the Virginia ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court tries to
avoid second-guessing state courts’ interpretations of their own
constitutions. In 2023, it turned down a request by North Carolina
Republicans to overrule a state Supreme Court decision that blocked the
GOP’s congressional map.
Still, even an unsuccessful appeal would let Democrats try to blame
their failure on the conservative majority that dominates the nation's
highest court, which has already infuriated the party and civil rights
groups by neutering the Voting Rights Act.
Legislative voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade after
each census to account for population changes. But Trump sparked an
unusual flurry of mid-decade redistricting last year by encouraging
Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts in a bid to win
several additional U.S. House seats and hold on to their party's narrow
majority in the midterm elections.
California responded with new voter-approved districts drawn to
Democrats' advantage, and Utah's top court imposed a new congressional
map that also helps Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans stand to gain from
new House districts passed in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio
and Tennessee. They could add even more after the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in the Voting Rights Act case, which has prompted some other
Republican states to consider redrawing their maps in time for this
year’s elections.
Virginia is currently represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and
five Republicans, all elected from districts imposed by a court
following a bipartisan redistricting commission’s failure to agree on a
map after the 2020 census. The new districts could have given Democrats
an improved chance to win all but one of the state's 11 congressional
seats.
[to top of second column]
|
State Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, center, speaks outside
the Supreme Court of Virginia after arguments were heard in a
redistricting-related case at the court in Richmond, Va., on Monday,
April 27, 2026. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed)
The state Supreme Court's majority was critical of the state’s
redrawing of the congressional maps to benefit one political party.
Those justices noted that 47% of the state’s voters supported GOP
congressional candidates in 2024, but the new map could result in
Democrats making up 91% of the state’s House delegation.
What was in the Democrats' map
Under the Democratic-drawn map, five districts would have been
anchored in the Democratic stronghold of northern Virginia.
Revisions to four other districts across Richmond, southern Virginia
and Hampton Roads would have diluted the voting power of
conservative blocs in those areas. And a reshaped district in parts
of western Virginia would have lumped together three
Democratic-leaning college towns to offset other Republican voters.
The state Supreme Court’s seven justices are appointed by the state
legislature, which has toggled back and forth between Democratic,
Republican and split control over recent years. Legal experts say
the body doesn’t have a set ideological profile.
The case before the court focused not on the shape of the new
districts but rather on the process the General Assembly used to
authorize them.
Because the state’s redistricting commission was established by a
voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an
amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a
resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state
election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the
ballot.
The legislature’s initial approval of the amendment occurred last
October, during early voting for the general election, before it
concluded. The legislature’s second vote on the amendment occurred
after a new legislative session began in January. Lawmakers also
approved a separate bill in February laying out the new districts,
subject to voter approval of the constitutional amendment.
Arguments over the definition of ‘election’
Judicial arguments focused on whether the legislature’s initial
approval of the amendment came too late, because early voting
already had begun.
Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that
the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the
general election. In that case, the legislature’s first vote on the
redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was
constitutional, he told judges.
But in its ruling, the Supreme Court said, “this view appears to be
wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history.”
An attorney for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, argued an
“election” should be interpreted to cover the entire period during
which voters can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in
Virginia. If that’s the case, he told justices, then the
legislature’s initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment
came too late to comply with the state constitution.
The Supreme Court agreed with that argument, writing: “The General
Assembly passed the proposed constitutional amendment for the first
time well after voters had begun casting ballots during the 2025
general election.”
By the time lawmakers initially endorsed the amendment, voters
already had cast more than 1.3 million ballots in the general
election, about 40% of the total votes ultimately cast, the court
said.
The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms a decision by a judge in rural
Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia. The court had placed a
hold on that ruling and allowed the redistricting vote to proceed
before hearing arguments on the case.
In the dissent to Friday's ruling, Chief Justice Cleo Powell said
the election for the purpose of considering the amendment does not
include the early voting period.
“The majority’s definition creates an infinite voting loop that
appears to have no established beginning,” she wrote, “only a
definitive end: Election Day.”
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
