Virginia Supreme Court questions redistricting process
Virginia Supreme Court justices zeroed in Monday on one question: Did lawmakers follow the rules when they put a redistricting amendment on the ballot?
The case is not about how people voted. Rather, according to justices, it is about whether the process used to get the amendment there met the requirements in Virginia’s constitution.
That process is laid out in Article XII. Lawmakers must pass an amendment, wait for an election, pass it again, and then send it to voters.
Justices spent much of the hearing asking whether that sequence happened the way the constitution requires.
One issue is what counts as the required “intervening election.” Attorneys disagreed on whether that means Election Day itself or the broader voting period.
Another issue is the special session lawmakers used. Republican challengers say that session was called for budget work, not redistricting.
They told the court there is no clear example of lawmakers using a special session that way.
Justices pushed on that point, asking whether the Legislature can expand the scope of a session once it starts.
A justice pressed attorneys on whether lawmakers followed the rules for expanding the special session, at one point asking whether it was “irrelevant” if those requirements were not followed.
Attorneys for the commonwealth said the process was valid and warned against overturning a vote after it already happened.
Virginia Solicitor General Tillman J. Breckenridge told the court it would be “patently unfair” to throw out the result based on process questions after voters had already weighed in.
Justices also examined the purpose behind those rules, including giving voters time to understand proposals and allowing accountability between legislative approvals.
They questioned whether technical issues, like timing or publication rules, should outweigh the outcome of a statewide vote.
Some justices raised concerns about setting a precedent where procedural missteps could undo election results.
Others questioned whether courts should step in at all when it comes to the Legislature’s internal rules.
The case is one of several legal fights tied to the new maps.
Breckenridge told the court there are at least two other separate lawsuits still moving. One focuses on whether the districts meet constitutional compactness standards.
A Circuit Court ruled Sunday against a Republican effort to block the maps on those grounds, though that decision is expected to be appealed.
The state is also trying to move parts of the case faster through the courts.
The court had not issued a ruling as of publication. Candidate filing for Virginia’s August congressional primaries closes in late May, creating urgency for campaigns and election officials who need to know which district lines will apply.
Throughout the hearing, justices did not signal how they will rule, but their questions stayed focused on whether lawmakers followed the constitution step by step.
The outcome will determine whether the amendment stands or whether the process has to start over.
Latest News Stories
Pritzker signs AI regulation critics say harms innovation, ‘picks winners’
Microsoft cuts over 600 Washington jobs, 4,800 globally amid corporate restructuring
Report: Modernization of central bank intertwined with regulations, security
500-plus fugitives arrested across two states
WalletHub study examines the financial independence of US states
Michigan’s Democrat primary in U.S. Senate race narrows
DOJ, states could secure 53 million eggs in price manipulation settlement
WATCH: State fails to investigate daycares with no children despite media reports
Illinois Quick Hits: Woman sentenced for voting twice
Embattled state lawmaker resigns after investigation into ‘unethical’ behavior
Everyday Economics: What jobs data actually show and why Fed is changing how it talks
Watchdog; Bill mandating more reporting from tax-exempt hospitals ‘common sense’
New statewide tenant law signed; Chicago seeks to push further
Illinois Quick Hits: 179 charged in ‘badgeless’ federal enforcement