\n<\/p>\n
Today, the Supreme Court of Virginia handed down one of the most consequential rulings in the Commonwealth\u2019s modern history. In Scott v. McDougle<\/i>, a 4-3 majority struck down the Democrats\u2019 brazen attempt to gerrymander Virginia\u2019s congressional map from a fair 6-5 split into an outrageous 10-1 partisan stranglehold. The ruling is a triumph for the rule of law, for the Virginia Constitution, and for the nearly 1.5 million Virginians who voted against this scheme despite being massively outspent.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s be clear about what happened here. In 2020, Virginia voters approved a bipartisan redistricting amendment to the state Constitution by a two-to-one margin. That amendment created the Virginia Redistricting Commission \u2014 a 16-member bipartisan body \u2014 and provided that if the commission deadlocked, the Supreme Court of Virginia would draw the maps. That is exactly what happened in 2021. The commission couldn\u2019t agree, and the Court unanimously drew maps that independent analysts, including the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, graded as an \u201cA\u201d \u2014 among the fairest in the entire country.<\/p>\n
Democrats didn\u2019t like fair maps. Fair maps meant competitive elections, and competitive elections meant they might lose seats. So rather than compete on ideas, they hatched a plan to gut the very constitutional amendment that Virginians had overwhelmingly endorsed just a few years earlier.<\/p>\n
Their scheme was as cynical as it was procedurally reckless. During a disputed Special Session, they rammed through a proposed constitutional amendment on a party-line vote \u2014 one that would temporarily suspend the bipartisan redistricting commission and let the General Assembly redraw congressional districts to their liking. They did this on October 31, 2025 \u2014 after more than 1.3 million Virginians had already cast their ballots in the ongoing general election for the House of Delegates (the same election in which Abigail Spanberger was elected governor).<\/p>\n
That timing is the crux of the Court\u2019s ruling. Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution requires that a proposed amendment be passed in two separate legislative sessions with an intervening election of the House of Delegates between them. The purpose is straightforward: give voters the chance to weigh in on delegates who will cast the second vote on the amendment. But when the General Assembly passed the proposal for the first time on October 31, forty percent of the electorate had already voted. Those 1.3 million Virginians never had the constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to consider the proposed amendment when choosing their delegates. As Justice Kelsey wrote for the majority, the Commonwealth\u2019s position would have required early voters to have \u201canticipated a legislative vote on a constitutional amendment four days before the last day of voting.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court rejected the Commonwealth\u2019s tortured argument that \u201celection\u201d means only Election Day \u2014 a single 24-hour period, rather than the entire 45 days of voting that Virginia allows (also thanks to the Democrats). Drawing on centuries of legal scholarship, dictionary definitions from Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster forward, and consistent and similar federal appellate rulings, the majority held that a \u201cgeneral election\u201d encompasses the combined actions of voters casting ballots and officials receiving them, from the first day of early voting through Election Day. The General Assembly\u2019s first vote on the amendment came in the middle of that process, not before it.<\/p>\n
Democrats then put their gerrymandered map to a referendum vote, accompanied by a ballot question asking voters whether they wanted to \u201crestore fairness\u201d \u2014 a masterclass in misleading framing. After outspending opponents by more than three to one, they eked out a bare majority: 1,604,276 yes votes to 1,499,393 no votes, a margin of just 3.38 percent. The Court correctly held that this narrow margin \u2014 secured through a constitutionally defective process \u2014 could not launder the underlying violation.<\/p>\n
So where does this leave Virginia? The Court\u2019s 2021 nonpartisan maps \u2014 the ones that earned an \u201cA\u201d from independent analysts \u2014 remain in full effect for the 2026 congressional elections. Virginia will continue to have a 6-5 congressional delegation split, with districts drawn fairly and without a partisan thumb on the scale. Republicans will compete on those maps, as they should, and defend their seats on the merits.<\/p>\n
And what about the Democrats\u2019 next move? Theoretically, they could try again in Virginia. The constitutional amendment process requires passage in two sessions with an intervening House of Delegates election, so the earliest a new attempt could reach voters would be 2028. But consider their predicament. They threw everything they had at this effort \u2014 and it barely worked even before the Court tossed it out. They won the referendum by just over three points, with more than three million voters participating, while spending more than three dollars for every one dollar spent by the opposition. That is not the profile of a popular mandate. That is the profile of a scheme that required a massive resource advantage just to limp across the finish line.<\/p>\n
Moreover, so much of the Democrats\u2019 political fuel in recent years has been anti-Trump energy. By 2028, Donald Trump will be in the final stretch of his presidency, constitutionally barred from running again. The single greatest motivator of Democratic turnout in Virginia will be exiting the political stage. Does anyone believe that a Virginia electorate \u2014 one that endorsed bipartisan redistricting by a two-to-one margin in 2020 \u2014 will embrace an openly partisan power grab without the boogeyman of Trump to drive them to the polls?<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s ruling is a reminder that constitutions matter, that process matters, and that no political party \u2014 no matter how large its legislative majority or campaign war chest \u2014 is above the law. Virginia Democrats tried to rig the game. The Supreme Court of Virginia stopped them. The fair maps stand, and the people of Virginia are better for it.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n