The Virginia Supreme Court on Monday deliberated the legal validity of a Democratic-backed redistricting referendum that could give the party a significant edge in the upcoming midterm elections. The case, brought by Republican plaintiffs, challenges whether state Democratic lawmakers improperly expanded the scope of a legislative special session to take up redistricting.
Last week, Virginia voters approved new congressional maps that would give Democrats a 10-1 majority in the U.S. House, a dramatic shift from the current 6-5 split. The referendum allows Democrats to temporarily redraw the state's congressional lines before the next U.S. Census, a move that has drawn intense scrutiny from Republicans.
During Monday's oral arguments, the court grappled with several key questions. One centered on the definition of an "election" under the state constitution, particularly whether the early voting period—which began in September 2025—should be considered part of the election. Democrats gathered for a special session in October 2025 to advance the referendum, while early voting was already underway for the November races.
Matthew Seligman, an attorney representing Democratic defendants, argued that the constitution defines an election as a single day in November. "The General Assembly passed the proposed amendment before the election, where the term 'election' is defined in the Constitution by five separate provisions as a single day that takes place in November," he told the court. However, some justices pushed back, questioning whether voters who cast ballots early were not actively participating in an election.
Virginia Solicitor General Tillman Breckenridge defended the Democrats' actions, noting that the special session—initially called by then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) in 2024 to address the state budget—had not formally ended. "They didn't violate any concept of a citizen legislature by remaining in recessed session for a long period of time; they only actually did business for 14 days," Breckenridge argued.
Thomas McCarthy, representing the GOP, countered that Democrats illegally expanded the scope of Youngkin's special session. "It's the product of an improperly expanded special session," McCarthy said. "Special sessions are special. That's why a two-thirds majority of each house is required just to assemble the body outside of its normal course." He warned that allowing such expansions would undermine the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority.
The case is part of a broader national redistricting battle. Republicans in states like Texas and Missouri have passed maps favorable to the GOP, while Democrats have countered with successful efforts in Virginia and California. The outcome of this case could have implications for the midterm elections, as both parties vie for control of the House.
While Democrats express confidence that the court will uphold the referendum, Republicans see a potential path to overturn the map. The court's decision, expected in the coming weeks, could reshape Virginia's congressional delegation and influence the national political landscape. Meanwhile, Florida lawmakers are also considering a new map proposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, adding to the ongoing redistricting chaos.
Related coverage: For more on the broader implications of this case, see Virginia Redistricting Defeat Signals Trouble for GOP Midterm Strategy. The court's handling of constitutional definitions echoes other high-stakes cases, such as the Supreme Court's review of digital dragnet warrants.
