RICHMOND, VA. — The Virginia Supreme Court on April 27, 2026, questioned whether the Democratic-led legislature complied with constitutional requirements when it sent a congressional redistricting plan to voters. The justices issued no immediate ruling after the hearing, which focused on whether new congressional districts approved by voters last week should be invalidated because of the process used by lawmakers.

A Republican legal challenge contends that the General Assembly violated procedural rules by placing a constitutional amendment before voters to authorize mid-decade redistricting. If the court finds that lawmakers violated procedural rules, it could invalidate the amendment. The new districts could net Democrats four additional U.S. House seats.

Virginia law requires a proposed redistricting amendment to be approved by a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election held between those sessions, before it can be placed on the ballot. The legislature's first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred in October 2025 while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. Justices questioned whether that first vote was too late because early voting had already begun.

Attorney Matthew Seligman argued that the term "election" should be defined to mean only the day of the general election. Under that definition, he told the justices, the legislature's first vote occurred before the election and was constitutional. Seligman told reporters that the challengers are asking to overturn the result of the referendum.

Attorney Thomas McCarthy argued that the term "election" means the entire period during which people can cast ballots in Virginia, which lasts several weeks. Under his definition, he said, the legislature's initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution. McCarthy said the purpose of Virginia's two-step amendment process, with an intervening election, is to inform voters whether legislative candidates support or oppose a proposed amendment.

McCarthy pointed to plaintiff Camilla Simon, a Democratic voter who cast an early vote last fall for Democratic Delegate Rodney Willett. After Simon voted, Willett sponsored the Democratic redistricting amendment, and Simon wished she could have undone her vote, McCarthy said. "None of these voters had any idea this was coming, and that's not how this process is supposed to work," he said.

In January 2026, Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. of Tazewell County ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special legislative session last fall and failed to initially approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year's general election. He also ruled that the state failed to publish the amendment three months before the election as required by law, and that the amendment was invalid and void.

Virginia's current U.S. House delegation consists of six Democrats and five Republicans elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan commission failed to agree on a map following the 2020 census. Legal challenges to new congressional maps remain in Virginia and Missouri.