On April 21, Virginia voters sent a message to the rest of the country: they’re tired of Republican gerrymandering. The day of the special election, called to bring a redistricting referendum to Virginia voters, saw millions turning out, with 51.5% voting yes and 48.4% voting no.
Proponents of the amendment celebrated after seeing the results, viewing it as an example of Democrats pushing back against Republican partisan gerrymandering in states like Texas, Florida and North Carolina. These are all states that, contrary to Virginia, did not leave the decision of redistricting in the hands of their residents and instead did it without a ballot measure.
However, lawsuits ensued following the referendum’s passage. What began as a lower court lawsuit made its way up to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the judges voted in a 4-3 decision that Virginia’s proposed redistricting measure, along with how the referendum was issued, was unconstitutional.
The reason for this ruling relates to Virginia’s constitution. The Virginia Supreme Court argued that the state legislature violated the rules and proper proceedings for putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot, saying, “Constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy.”
Specifically, the debate is over the interpretation of the word ‘election’. The Supreme Court of Virginia argues that this word refers to Election Day as well as the whole early voting period which begins months earlier, while Virginia Democrats say that election means only Election Day.
In Virginia, there are specific rules about the timing of putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The Constitution states that a constitutional amendment must be passed through the General Assembly twice; once before a general election and once after. The Court found that because early voting for the 2025 House of Delegates election had begun before the General Assembly passed the proposal, this proceeding had not been followed.
Jay Jones, Virginia’s attorney general, asked to bring this case before the United States’ highest court, the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say, and allowed partisan gerrymandering already this year. At the end of April, they overturned a lower court’s ruling and allowed Texas to redistrict, with some believing their new districts will lead to five additional Republican seats.
However, on Friday, May 15, the US Supreme Court rejected the appeal for an emergency stay, which would have temporarily blocked the Virginia Supreme Court Ruling. This was stated in a one sentence order, simply stating, “The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.” No further information was provided to the public.
Senior Natalie Winkler said, “I voted because this year my government teacher has been really emphasizing political participation, so that encouraged me to go and vote.”
“I voted in favor of it,” Winkler added. “But I agree that it’s unconstitutional. I wish that we were striking down all gerrymandering, like in Texas.”
Joel Simpson, senior, feels similarly to Winkler. “I don’t think other states should be redistricting for partisan reasons. … I was against it here in the first place,” he said.
However, Simpson continued on, “But I do know other states that are doing it. Other states that are doing it aren’t necessarily doing it through election,” he said. “So while legal challenges can be raised in other states, they’re doing [redistricting] in ways that avoid legal action.”
Winkler echoed a similar perspective.
“I can agree on a certain level [with the ruling], but I think it’s happening in such a wider way in the country that it feels almost necessary,” she said, “To prevent an already very Republican government from becoming more Republican, especially with the president who enjoys nominating those who think exactly like him.”
Winkler stated an inconsistency in attitudes towards redistricting at the national level.
“I think they should declare it [as unconstitutional]. If [redistricting] is unconstitutional for us, it should be unconstitutional for Texas.”
Dylan Korengold, senior, summarized a perspective held by many.
“I felt like all over the country, the Trump administration has made a big push to try to redistrict other states,” he said. “The midterms are coming up, and they’re most likely going to lose a good amount of seats. They’re just kind of trying to do some triage.”
Korengold highlighted a notable aspect of the redistricting amendment.
“I liked that it was only gonna be in effect until the next census, so it’s not like it was gonna go forever,” he said.
Korengold ended the conversation by saying, “I think that redistricting in Virginia would step in the right direction, by fighting back.”
