Virginia weighs legality of new congressional map favoring Democrats that could reshape US House

Virginia supreme court justices questioned on Monday whether the state’s Democratic-led legislature followed constitutional requirements when sending a congressional redistricting plan to the voters. This case has significant implications for the US House of Representatives’ balance of power.

The new districts, which could result in a net gain of four additional seats for Democrats, narrowly received voter approval last week. However, a Republican legal challenge argues that the general assembly violated procedural rules by presenting the constitutional amendment to authorize mid-decade redistricting to the voters. If the court determines that lawmakers did not follow the rules, it could invalidate the amendment, making last week’s statewide vote meaningless.

This situation in Virginia is part of a broader national redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats trying to gain an edge in the upcoming November midterm election. The outcome of this election will determine whether Republicans maintain their slim majority in the US House.

Former President Donald Trump initiated a cycle of gerrymandering last summer by encouraging Texas Republicans to redraw districts in their favor to win additional House seats. This sparked similar actions in other states, leading to the approval of Virginia’s new map last week.

The focus now shifts to Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed a congressional redistricting plan that could counter Virginia’s changes by improving Republicans’ chances of winning more seats. This redistricting plan is set to be discussed during a special session of the GOP-controlled legislature starting on Tuesday.

During Monday’s court proceedings in Virginia, the justices deliberated on whether the new congressional districts should be invalidated due to the lawmakers’ process. No immediate ruling was issued.

The process of amending Virginia’s redistricting plan required two separate legislative sessions, with a state election in between, to place the amendment on the ballot since the state’s redistricting commission was established through a voter-approved constitutional amendment. Questions arose about the timing of the legislature’s first vote last October, which occurred while early voting was ongoing but before it ended on the day of the general election.

The attorney representing the legislature argued that the early voting period should not be considered part of the “election.” Conversely, another attorney contended that the concept of an “election” encompasses the entire period when people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia.

The purpose of Virginia’s two-step amendment process, with an intervening election, was to allow voters to understand where legislative candidates stand on proposed constitutional amendments. This was underscored by the example of a Democratic voter who wished she could change her early vote after learning about the redistricting amendment.

Both sides in the redistricting dispute claim to represent the voters’ will. Republicans hope to gain up to nine more seats through revised districts in several states, while Democrats aim to secure as many as 10 additional seats in California, Utah, and Virginia.

Legal challenges persist in Virginia and Missouri even as both major parties strive for gains in the upcoming midterms through redistricting efforts. Virginia, currently represented by six Democrats and five Republicans in the House, could potentially see changes under the new redistricting plan approved by voters last week.

Campaigning in Virginia has already begun based on the new districts in anticipation of the state’s primary election on August 4. Notably, a judge in Tazewell County ruled in January that lawmakers had not followed proper procedures when adding the redistricting amendment during a special session. The Virginia supreme court temporarily stayed this ruling to allow the redistricting vote to proceed.

In Monday’s arguments, justices also discussed lawmakers’ ability to expand their special session agenda and the importance of a three-month public notice requirement in relation to a voter-approved amendment. Republicans have filed additional legal challenges, adding further complexity to the situation.