OPINION:
While the nation’s political observers fixated on the U.S. Supreme Court formally clearing Texas’ redrawn congressional map for the 2026 midterms this week, a far more audacious partisan maneuver was being dissected in Richmond.
Before the Virginia Supreme Court on Monday, state Democrats faced a barrage of tough, pointed questions regarding a redistricting referendum that narrowly passed last week.
If allowed to stand, this referendum clears the way for Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts, bypassing a constitutionally mandated bipartisan commission.
The ultimate goal? Securing a staggering 10-1 margin over Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation.
Let’s pause here for one second to talk about “fairness,” which was the catchword of the Democrats, including carpetbagger former President Barack Obama, who suddenly appeared in commercials that blanketed the airwaves for months on this issue. The referendum passed by a scant 51.5%. The current makeup of the 11 congressional districts in the commonwealth is 6-5 for the Democrats, which reflects its citizens.
But let’s be clear: Democrats used their 51% majority to instantly take 91% of political power. Where’s the fairness in that?
So, Republicans are correctly challenging the referendum, pointing out that the Democratic-led General Assembly blatantly flouted the rules to force this constitutional amendment onto the ballot.
Amending the Virginia Constitution requires the General Assembly to approve a resolution in two consecutive legislative sessions, with an election occurring in between. To claim they met this standard, Democrats used a dizzying technicality: They argued that a special session convened last year was simply left open and resumed during the normal session.
Furthermore, the legislature’s initial vote on this proposed amendment happened in October, while early voting for the off-year election was already underway. The General Assembly even neglected to publish the proposed amendment 90 days in advance, opting to retroactively repeal that specific regulation rather than comply with it.
During oral arguments Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court justices appeared deeply skeptical of the Democrats’ legal gymnastics. They peppered the Democratic attorneys with tough questions, highlighting the absurdity of the procedural shortcuts taken to secure this partisan advantage.
Justice Wesley Russell zeroed in on the questionable use of the special session, asking Democratic attorney Matthew Seligman, “You don’t disagree that the General Assembly didn’t follow the terms of the resolution for expanding the argument, is, as a legal matter, under Article 4, Section 7. It’s irrelevant that they didn’t follow that?”
Mr. Seligman brazenly replied, “That is a yes. But to be precise, first of all, there are two points here, one about judicial power and the second about compliance with legislative rules. … This court does not have the power to enforce alleged violations of legislative rules.”
The justices were not eager to accept the premise that the legislature can simply ignore the commonwealth’s constitution whenever it is politically convenient. Justice Stephen McCullough pushed back on the timeline, saying: “I think that’s a compelling argument on how the legislature, by majority vote, sets up its own rules. The more tricky and, in my mind, unprecedented aspect of that question is the idea of a sort of perpetual special session, when the constitution envisions a citizen legislature that’s part-time and that meets at prescribed time periods, and we’re writing on a blank canvas on that question.”
Mr. Russell pressed further on the sheer illogical nature of this maneuver. “Special Session [by] definition is something that happens outside of the general session,” he pointed out. “If we’ve been in special session and we get around to another general session … why doesn’t the general end the special? What authority do you have for that proposition other than constitutional silence?”
When Mr. Seligman attempted to argue that this silence justified their actions, Mr. Russell delivered a devastating hypothetical: “Would a special session convened in 1929, if they forgot to adjourn sine die, still be in session?”
Fortunately, the Virginia Supreme Court seems far less willing to turn a blind eye to procedural cheating. The “democratic process” cannot function if the party in power is permitted to rewrite the rules of the game while the clock is already ticking.
As evidence of its reticence, the Supreme Court of Virginia, a day after hearing arguments, upheld an injunction halting the certification of the redistricting amendment.
The court’s brief ruling said, “Upon consideration whereof, the Court denies the motion.” Certification remains paused ahead of the State Board of Elections meeting Friday, when redistricting was set to move forward.
Court records note, “This agenda item is contingent upon a final decision by the Virginia Supreme Court and is subject to removal.”
Where it all goes from here is anyone’s guess, but right now, justice has been served.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.