Virginia Democrats ask Supreme Court to reinstate nullified redistricting amendment
The article centers Virginia Democratic officials' legal arguments and petition language while straightforwardly explaining the Virginia Supreme Court's majority reasoning and the procedural obstacles to federal review. Word choices like 'long-shot' and 'last-ditch effort' acknowledge skepticism of the Democrats' position without editorializing heavily. The framing presents both the Democrats' constitutional interpretation claims and the factual basis for the state court's ruling with roughly equal explicitness, though the Democratic petition receives more direct quotation and emphasis.
Primary voices: elected official, state or recognized government
- This article does not address the substance of Republican or pro-status-quo arguments regarding the redistricting amendment or the Virginia Supreme Court majority's rationale beyond procedural grounds
- This article does not explain how the four dissenting Virginia Supreme Court justices characterized the majority's reasoning
The framing may shift pending Chief Justice Roberts' decision on the emergency petition and any subsequent Supreme Court action, which could validate or reject the Democrats' federal constitutional cl
Government-sourcedBoth-sides framingNeutral language
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones filed a long-shot emergency petition to the Supreme Court on Monday, urging it to reinstate the voter-approved Democratic gerrymander of the state’s congressional map, which the Virginia Supreme Court struck down last week.
The petition, filed on behalf of Jones and other Democratic leaders in Virginia, argued that the Virginia Supreme Court erred in ruling that an “election” in the Virginia constitution includes the early voting period, instead arguing that under federal law, an “election” refers to a singular day.
“The basis for that holding was the Court’s view that, contrary to the Constitution’s own definition of the term ‘election’ to refer to a single day in November, the term instead encompasses the entire period of early voting beginning in September,” the petition reads. “Based on that novel and manifestly atextual interpretation, the Court overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the Commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Friday that Democrats in the state legislature violated the Virginia Constitution when sending the referendum to voters. The Virginia Constitution requires ballot measures to be voted on by the state legislature in two stages, with an election in between to give voters the opportunity to weigh the amendment when they vote for their representatives.
The majority ruled that because the state legislature passed the constitutional amendment after more than a million votes had been cast through early voting in the 2025 election, the April 21 referendum was null and void. Voters had narrowly approved the new congressional map in the referendum, which likely would have shifted the commonwealth’s congressional delegation from a 6-5 Democratic advantage to a 10-1 Democratic advantage.
The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court claims that the Virginia Supreme Court had two key issues with its ruling in conflict with federal law.
The first issue alleged by Virginia Democrats is that “it predicated its interpretation of the Virginia Constitution on a grave misreading of federal law, which expressly fixes a single day for the ‘election’ of Representatives and Delegates to Congress.” The second issue, according to the petition, is that the state Supreme Court went beyond ordinary judicial review to find that early voting is included in the definition of an election.
The last-ditch effort by Virginia Democrats is widely considered a long shot, especially considering that the lawsuit appealed from the Virginia Supreme Court deals with issues interpreting the Old Dominion’s constitution, rather than the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court typically lacks jurisdiction to review cases appealed from state supreme courts that do not have a federal constitutional issue at the center.
The petition from Virginia Democrats argues the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal by pointing to the federal claims under the elections and supremacy clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as well as to the federal law setting Election Day.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency petitions out of Virginia, will decide whether to reject the petition on his own or refer the petition to the full Supreme Court for a decision.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first.
Sign in to leave a comment.