The Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in a Republican challenge to a state congressional map that had been redrawn by the legislature and approved less than a week ago by voters in a statewide referendum.
The case revolves around procedural issues, some of them quite technical, but it carries national stakes, possibly including control of Congress after the midterms. At heart is an amendment, which Virginians approved by a three-point margin last Tuesday, giving the State Legislature power to draw a new congressional map mid-decade if other states have redistricted first. Typically, new lines are drawn after the census, every 10 years.
Leaders of the Democratic-led General Assembly unveiled the new map in February, giving Democrats an advantage in four districts currently held by Republicans. They argued that it was a necessary response in a national battle of redistricting that was set off last spring when President Trump pressured Texas to redraw its map to the Republicans’ advantage. A new, Democratic-friendly map in Virginia would bring the national back-and-forth to an effective stalemate, though Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida introduced new maps on Monday that appeared to add as many as four new Republican seats in that state.
In an interview this past weekend on the Fox News show “The Sunday Briefing,” Mr. Trump called the passage of the amendment in Virginia “totally unconstitutional” and dismissed the results of the referendum, saying that there had been “a lot of cheating going on.”
The referendum was the last step in a lengthy process laid out in the Virginia Constitution. Before voters weigh in, members of the General Assembly must approve the language of a proposed amendment twice, before and after an election for the state House of Delegates. The first vote came on Oct. 31, just days before the 2025 state election.
That timing invited some of the legal challenges the amendment is now facing. Republicans argue that early voting in the 2025 election had been underway for more than a month before the amendment was approved, meaning the legislative action came too late. That claim drew the most attention and questions from justices on Monday.
Since October, Republicans have filed multiple lawsuits seeking to prevent the state from redistricting; an attempt by the Republican National Committee to block the implementation of the new maps was denied on Sunday in Richmond City Court.
The case argued on Monday before the Virginia Supreme Court came out of Tazewell County in the rural southwestern corner of the state, where Republican leaders, among other plaintiffs, challenged the amendment on procedural grounds. In January, Circuit Court Judge Jack S. Hurley, Jr., ruled in their favor, saying that the amendment was invalid and prohibiting a referendum on it. On appeal, the state Supreme Court allowed the referendum to go forward but said it would rule on the issues afterward.
Thomas R. McCarthy, a lawyer representing those challenging the amendment, pointed out that more than a million people had voted in 2025 before the amendment was proposed. “None of these voters had any idea this was coming,” he said. “And that’s not how the process is supposed to work.”
Facing a steady barrage of questions from two of the seven justices, Matthew Seligman, arguing on behalf of the amendment, said that the word “election,” as defined in the state Constitution, clearly referred to Election Day itself, “a single day that takes place in November.” State law provides “an opportunity to participate in the election early,” he said, but that does not change when the election actually takes place. “That’s why it’s called early voting.”
The debate in Virginia follows a somewhat similar legal argument about mail ballots that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the court is weighing whether it’s legal for states to allow mail ballots cast before Election Day to be counted if they arrive after Election Day but within a period defined in state law.
The significant growth in early voting following the 2020 election, when the pandemic caused major shifts in voting behavior across large swaths of the population, has been accompanied by a host of legal debates. They largely surround the legal definitions of “Election Day” and the finality of either when ballots are cast by voters or when ballots are counted by election officials.
The plaintiffs in the Virginia case challenged the legality of the amendment on other grounds, too.
One argument claimed that the special session in which lawmakers first approved the measure was not legal because it had initially convened in 2024 with the purpose of discussing budget matters.
Another claimed the amendment violated a law requiring the text of such measures to be posted on the door of every county courthouse at least three months before a state election.
That law was originally part of the 1902 version of the state Constitution, but it was removed when a new Constitution was adopted in 1971. Though the law remains on the books, Mr. Seligman argued that removing it from the Constitution meant that it no longer determined the validity of an amendment.
And as one justice, Stephen R. McCullough, added: “Who goes to the courthouse to get their news anymore anyway?”
Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting.
Campbell Robertson reports for The Times on Delaware, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.
The post Virginia High Court Weighs Legality of Congressional Map Approved Last Week appeared first on New York Times.
