Virginia Court Hears GOP Challenge to Democratic Redistricting Plan

The Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over a voter-approved congressional redistricting plan that could give Democrats four additional seats in the U.S. House, according to multiple reports.

A Republican legal challenge contends that the state's Democrat-led legislature violated procedural rules when it placed the constitutional amendment before voters. If the court agrees, it could invalidate the amendment and render last week's statewide vote meaningless. The case is part of a broader national redistricting battle ahead of November's midterm elections.

The new districts won narrow voter approval on April 21, but Republicans argue that lawmakers failed to follow constitutional requirements in placing the amendment before voters. Specifically, they contend that the legislature's first vote on the amendment occurred too late—during early voting for last year's general election—which violates state rules requiring a resolution to be passed in two separate legislative sessions with an election in between.

During Monday's arguments, justices focused on whether the new congressional districts should be invalidated because of the process used by lawmakers. Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the 'election' should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election, making the first vote constitutional. However, attorney Thomas McCarthy, representing the plaintiffs, said 'election' includes the entire early voting period, which lasted several weeks in Virginia.

The court did not issue an immediate ruling. Meanwhile, Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed a congressional redistricting plan that could offset Virginia's changes by giving Republicans an improved chance of winning additional seats. The case highlights the high stakes of redistricting as both parties seek to gain an advantage in the upcoming midterm elections.

The justices appeared uncertain about whether the amendment should be approved, with Justice Wesley Russell expressing particular concern about early voting and its potential impact on voters' decisions regarding candidates who supported redistricting. Seligman countered that this is a risk inherent to early voting, emphasizing that every voter in Virginia has the choice to vote on Election Day.

The court also examined the timeline of legislative actions related to the amendment. Republicans argued that the legislature's special session lasted two years and was improperly expanded beyond its original purpose of addressing the state budget. McCarthy claimed Democrats exploited this extended session to push through unrelated measures, including redistricting. Breckenridge countered that there was no perpetual governance, as legislators only conducted business for 14 days during the special session.

An ironic twist emerged in the arguments when it became apparent that Republicans, who typically oppose early voting at the federal level, were advocating for an expanded definition of 'election' to include the entire early voting period in this case. McCarthy argued that voters were unaware of the amendment's inclusion and that this violated established procedures.