A Virginia circuit court judge has delivered a significant ruling regarding the General Assembly’s attempts to navigate the complexities of redistricting during a special legislative session. Judge Jack S. Hurley Jr. ruled that lawmakers exceeded their authority by pushing for a constitutional amendment during a session meant for budget discussions. This decision highlights the importance of adherence to legislative rules and the integrity of the electoral process.
In a sweeping judgment issued on Tuesday, Judge Hurley invalidated initiatives aimed at modifying how congressional and legislative districts are drawn. He emphasized that the General Assembly failed to follow its own rules in expanding the scope of the special session. “Certainly, both houses of the Commonwealth’s legislature are required to follow their own rules and resolutions,” he stated, reinforcing the expectation of compliance within the legislative body.
The court determined that adding redistricting issues to the special session required either unanimous consent or a supermajority vote, both of which were lacking. The ruling pointed out that the proposed constitutional amendment went beyond the limits set when the special session was first convened. Hurley firmly noted, “The Court FINDS that adding… [a] joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia related to the reapportionment or redistricting violated… the General Assembly’s own call.”
Moreover, Hurley addressed crucial matters related to the timing of elections. He rejected arguments suggesting that an election is only valid on Election Day itself, highlighting a more nuanced view of the electoral process. More than one million Virginians had already voted in early elections for the upcoming 2025 House of Delegates elections by the time lawmakers voted on the amendment. In his ruling, Hurley argued that to consider the election strictly limited to November 4 would effectively disenfranchise those voters. “For this Court to find the election was only on November 4, 2025, those one million Virginia voters would be completely disenfranchised,” he asserted.
Additionally, the ruling pointed out the lawmakers’ failure to comply with requirements for publicly posting and publishing proposed constitutional amendments. This oversight was crucial, as it meant that any votes conducted during the 2026 regular session could not qualify as the necessary second approval mandated by law. Hurley observed, “Therefore, the Court FINDS that the provisions of… the Code of Virginia have not been complied with, and therefore all votes on the proposed Constitutional Amendment… are ineffective as being a ‘SECOND’ VOTE OF THE General Assembly.”
The judge issued both temporary and permanent injunctions to prevent any further action on the amendment. This ruling serves as a formidable setback for lawmakers eager to redefine Virginia’s redistricting process. It underscores a critical message about the boundaries of legislative power, particularly during special sessions, and reinforces the necessity of transparency and procedure in the democratic process.
As redistricting disputes arise across the country, the Virginia ruling could resonate beyond state lines, highlighting the ongoing struggle between political ambitions and established legal frameworks. The outcome signals the watchful nature of the judicial system in upholding democratic principles and ensuring that the electoral voice of the people is not compromised.
"*" indicates required fields
