On April 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia heard oral arguments in Scott v. McDougle, a case that will decide whether a voter-approved redistricting amendment stands or falls on procedural grounds. The amendment, passed by just over 51 percent of Virginia voters on April 21, would allow Democrats to implement a “10-1” congressional map, giving the party 10 of Virginia’s 11 federal seats and netting four additional seats in the U.S. House. Republicans filed suit in October 2025, arguing that Democratic lawmakers violated the state constitution when advancing the amendment, not on the merits of the map itself, but on the precise sequence in which it was approved.
A Tazewell County circuit court agreed with them in January. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones appealed. The day after voters approved the amendment, the same circuit judge issued a final injunction blocking certification of the results. On April 28, the Virginia Supreme Court denied Jones’s motion to lift that block and allow certification to proceed, leaving the injunction in place while the court considers the full case. The congressional filing deadline for 2026 midterm candidates is May 25.
A Bipartisan Commission Bypassed and a Constitutional Amendment Rushed Through Two Sessions
Virginia’s current redistricting process was itself the product of a constitutional amendment: in 2020, voters approved a change that handed the power to draw congressional districts to a bipartisan commission of eight legislators and eight citizens. That process was widely seen as a reform. What happened next inverted it.
In 2025, President Donald Trump called on Republican-led states to redraw their congressional maps mid-decade to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority. Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina quickly complied, drawing new maps expected to yield Republicans as many as five additional seats nationally. Virginia Democrats, rather than absorb those losses, decided to respond in kind. They passed a constitutional amendment through the General Assembly to temporarily bypass the bipartisan commission and allow the legislature to draw a new congressional map before the midterms.
To amend Virginia’s constitution, a proposal must pass in two consecutive legislative sessions with an election held in between. Democrats passed the amendment in a special session in October 2025, and again in January 2026, before putting it to voters in an April special election. Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the enabling legislation in February. Republicans argued from the start that the first passage was procedurally defective on three grounds: the 2024 special session was still technically open when the amendment was moved through; early voting for Virginia’s 2025 general elections had already begun, meaning no qualifying election had occurred between the two sessions; and a statutory requirement to post the amendment for 90 days on courthouse grounds was not met.
Voters Approved the Map, a Judge Blocked It the Next Day, and the High Court Has Now Declined to Intervene
On April 21, 2026, Virginia voters approved the redistricting referendum by roughly 3 percentage points, with more than three million ballots cast. Democrats declared the result a mandate. Republicans returned to Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr., who on April 22 issued a final order declaring the House bill that authorized the referendum void ab initio, concluding it violated two General Assembly resolutions, portions of the Virginia state code, and the state constitution. He permanently enjoined the State Board of Elections from certifying the results or implementing any new congressional map.
Attorney General Jones asked the Virginia Supreme Court on April 28 to stay the injunction and allow certification to proceed while the court deliberated. The court denied that motion the same day, meaning the block on certification remains in place. The redistricting case now sits entirely with the Virginia Supreme Court, which has set no timeline for its final ruling. House Speaker Don Scott (D-Portsmouth), the named defendant, called the legal maneuvering “court-shopping, plain and simple.”
Three Procedural Questions Drove the Oral Argument, and the Justices Were Harder on Democrats
The April 27 hearing before the full seven-justice court zeroed in on three constitutional and statutory questions: whether the 2024 special session was validly open when Democrats moved the redistricting amendment in October 2025; whether early voting counts as an intervening election under Article XII of the Virginia Constitution; and whether a decades-old courthouse posting requirement, technically still on the books despite being removed from the 1971 constitution, applies to this amendment.
Justice Wesley G. Russell Jr. led questioning and pressed attorneys sharply on what legally constitutes an election. “That seems to be the sine qua non of an election. I go and vote,” Russell observed, suggesting skepticism of the Democratic position that early voting does not constitute an election. Justices Russell and Stephen McCullough, two of the court’s more conservative members, directed most of their pointed questions at Matthew Seligman, counsel for House Speaker Scott, rather than at Republican counsel Thomas McCarthy. The VPM News account of the argument noted that justices appeared to give McCarthy more expansive opportunities to develop his arguments, drawing out historical context rather than challenging it. Virginia Solicitor General Tillman J. Breckenridge argued that early voting was “inherently fair” and did not constitute an election. McDougle’s team countered that voters who cast early ballots in 2025 did so without knowing that the legislators they were voting for would later back the redistricting amendment.
The Decision Will Determine Virginia’s Map for 2026 and Potentially Set Precedent for Mid-Decade Redistricting Nationally
Three separate legal challenges to the redistricting effort are ongoing. The Virginia Supreme Court is weighing two constitutional issues and one statutory issue from the Tazewell County case. A Richmond Circuit Court on April 27 denied a separate Republican challenge based on compactness and continuity requirements in the new map, ruling in favor of Democrats on that narrow issue. Former Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, an active opponent of the effort, said the remaining challenges together raise four constitutional and two statutory issues.
If the Virginia Supreme Court upholds the lower court and voids the amendment, Virginia’s 2024 congressional map remains in place for the 2026 midterms, effectively costing Democrats the four seats the new 10-1 map would have produced. If the court reverses the lower court, additional litigation on the new map itself is likely to follow. Republicans have redrawn maps in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio. Democrats have countered with new maps in California and, pending this ruling, Virginia. The net congressional effect of the full redistricting cycle could be decided in part by what the Virginia Supreme Court writes in the coming weeks.
Conclusion
The Virginia Supreme Court has now declined twice in two days to act in Democrats’ favor: it heard arguments skeptical of their position on April 27 and denied their certification motion on April 28. The lower court’s injunction stands. Three million votes sit uncertified. The justices have given no indication of when they will rule, and the May 25 candidate filing deadline leaves little margin. What the court decides will not only determine Virginia’s congressional map for 2026 but will also signal how far state courts are willing to go in policing the procedural rules that govern constitutional amendments passed under political urgency.
