(AFP) – The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday overturned the US state’s voter-approved redistricting plan, dealing a huge blow to Democrats’ hopes of reshaping the battle for control of Congress ahead of this year’s midterm elections. In a ruling following months of legal challenges, the court found that Democratic lawmakers failed to follow constitutional procedures in a closely watched referendum on a map that the party hoped would create several new safe seats. “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the court said.
The referendum, narrowly approved by voters in a special election last month, would have cleared the way for Democrats to redraw Virginia’s congressional districts mid-decade, potentially shifting the state’s current 6-5 Democratic advantage in the US House of Representatives to as much as 10-1 under the proposed map. The ruling preserves the current districts and marks another flashpoint in an escalating national redistricting war between Democrats and Republicans as both parties seek an edge in the narrowly divided House. President Donald Trump celebrated the decision on social media as a “huge win” for his Republicans. Trump had helped trigger the latest wave of redistricting battles last year by urging Republican-led states including Texas to redraw congressional maps to favor Republicans. Democrats responded with efforts in states including California and Virginia aimed at offsetting Republican gains.
Republicans had repeatedly sued to block the Virginia referendum, calling it illegal and hyper-partisan. Democratic Virginia House Speaker Don Scott said in a statement that “no decision can erase what Virginians made clear at the ballot box.” “We respect the court. But we will keep fighting for a democracy where voters — not politicians — have the final say,” he said.
– Legal fight –
The legal fight centered not on the shape of the proposed districts themselves, but on whether lawmakers followed the process required under Virginia’s constitution for placing constitutional amendments before voters. Virginia law requires constitutional amendments to pass through two separate legislative sessions with a general election in between. Republicans argued lawmakers improperly advanced the amendment after early voting for last year’s election had already begun, violating the constitution’s requirement for an intervening election. Democrats countered that the “election” referred only to Election Day itself, not the weeks-long early voting period — an argument some justices appeared skeptical of during oral arguments. The court ultimately sided with challengers who argued the amendment process was unconstitutional because voting had already started before lawmakers gave initial approval.
The dispute stemmed from a fast-tracked special legislative session last fall. Lawmakers approved the amendment again in January before passing a separate bill in February laying out the new congressional districts, contingent on voter approval. Under the Democratic-backed map, northern Virginia districts would have expanded into more Republican-leaning rural areas, while district boundaries across Richmond, Hampton Roads and southern Virginia would have been redrawn in ways expected to dilute conservative voting blocs. The state reportedly spent about $5 million administering the special election, while outside groups poured nearly $100 million into campaigns surrounding the referendum. The case had already wound through lower courts before reaching the state Supreme Court. In January, a judge in rural Tazewell County ruled lawmakers failed to follow constitutional procedures and declared the amendment invalid. The Virginia Supreme Court later allowed the referendum vote to proceed while considering the appeal.
Legal experts said it is rare for a court to overturn the outcome of a statewide vote, though not unprecedented in Virginia. The state Supreme Court invalidated a local referendum in Arlington in the 1950s after ruling voters had approved an unconstitutional measure. The ruling leaves open the possibility of further appeals, potentially to the US Supreme Court.
– Frankie TAGGART
© 2024 AFP
