Judge: Virginia Dems’ Gerrymandering Ploy Is Illegal And Voided

A Virginia judge has shot down efforts by state Democrats to gerrymander the commonwealth in their party’s favor ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

In his Tuesday decision, Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley ruled that Democrat lawmakers unlawfully rushed a constitutional amendment proposal — which would allow them to redraw the state’s congressional map — through the General Assembly. As The Federalist’s Breccan Thies recently reported, Democrats’ proposed map “could nuke up to four Republican-held seats” and create “a potential [congressional] delegation of 10 Democrats and one Republican.”

Under the Virginia Constitution, proposed amendments must first be passed by both chambers of the General Assembly in two consecutive legislative sessions. Should they receive such approval, these measures are then submitted to voters for consideration “not sooner than ninety days after final passage by the General Assembly,” and must receive majority support from the electorate to ratify the state’s founding document.

The Democrat-run General Assembly passed the proposed redistricting amendment in October 2025 and again earlier this month, with the hopes of sending it to voters for approval in an April special election so that the gerrymandered map could be used for the midterms later this year. Critics — which include the lawsuit’s Republican plaintiffs and former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares — argued that the General Assembly’s October passage of the amendment was illegitimate because it occurred during early voting, and therefore, did not comport with the Virginia Constitution’s requirement that there be an intervening general election between the legislature’s twice approval of the resolution.

“Under current Virginia law, the election voting process in Virginia spans 45 days. The closing of the polls on November 4, 2025 will be the culmination of the ongoing election process, which commenced September 19, 2025,” Miyares wrote last year. “Accordingly, because a general election of delegates is already underway, the November 4th culmination of this 2025 election cannot be deemed to be the ‘next general election.’ It is the current general election.”

Hurley agreed with such arguments in his Tuesday ruling. While acknowledging the constitutional requirement raised by plaintiffs and Miyares, the circuit judge noted that in order for him to “find that the election was only on November 4, 2025, those one million Virginia voters” who cast their ballots in the early voting process “would be completely disenfranchised.”

“There is no rational conclusion except that the ELECTION began on the first day of voting (September 19, 2025) and ended on November 4, 2025. Therefore, the Court FINDS that following the October 31, 2025 vote and passage of House Joint Resolution 6007 there HAS NOT BEEN an ensuing election of the House of Delegates, and such ensuing general election CANNOT occur until 2027,” Hurley wrote. “Thus, the action of the General Assembly during its Regular Session 2026 CANNOT meet the second passage required of Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution, which second passage must occur before the same can be submitted to the voters of Virginia for adoption.”

Hurley went on to determine that Democrat lawmakers additionally did not adhere to Virginia law when it came to properly giving voters adequate time to weigh in on the amendment. He noted how defendants conceded that the proposed amendment was not published by the clerk of the House of Delegates or posted “at the front door of every Courthouse, ‘not later than three months prior to the next ensuing general election” for the House.

The circuit judge noted that the “sole purpose” for such requirements is to “provide voters with notice and information PRIOR to the election of the House of Delegates members who would be elected to vote on the proposed Constitutional Amendment for the second vote as required by the Constitution.”

“The court hereby GRANTS a TEMPORARY and PERMANENT INJUNCTION, requiring the Clerk of the Court of Tazewell County to post the proposed Constitutional Amendment at least ninety (90) days BEFORE the next ensuing election of the members of the House of Delegates election,” Hurley wrote.

As noted by attorney and former House of Delegate Tim Anderson, Hurley’s ruling “is a circuit court order, so it is formally binding only in Tazewell County — not statewide yet. But it squarely declares the process unconstitutional, forces an appeal, and seriously clouds the amendment’s path unless reversed or stayed.”

He separately added, however, that, for now, the amendment is “cooked.”

Defendants — which includes Democrat House Speaker Don Scott — plan to appeal the decision.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood