Virginia Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Jett)

An anti-voting lawsuit seeking to block Virginia’s Democratic-led plan to counter nationwide GOP gerrymanders.

Background

Three Virginia circuit court clerks sued legislative leaders and staff of the Virginia General Assembly, challenging the legality of a special session through which the legislature advanced a proposed constitutional amendment allowing lawmakers to temporarily reclaim redistricting powers from Virginia’s independent Redistricting Commission.

The General Assembly’s Democratic majority introduced the amendment as part of a broader effort to counter aggressive Republican gerrymanders in other states, including Missouri, North Carolina and Texas. The proposal would permit Virginia lawmakers to redraw congressional maps mid-decade to ensure fair representation and offset partisan manipulation elsewhere, while including a sunset clause returning authority to the Redistricting Commission after 2030.

The plaintiffs allege that the legislature acted outside its authority by extending a 2024 budget-only special session and that the proposed amendment violates procedural rules requiring an intervening election between legislative votes on constitutional changes. They seek to invalidate the entire process and enjoin state officials from advancing the amendment.

Why It Matters

This lawsuit directly targets Virginia’s attempt to defend democratic representation amid a nationwide wave of Republican-led gerrymanders. If successful, the suit would derail the state’s plan to rebalance congressional maps ahead of 2026, preserving partisan advantages established through GOP-controlled redistricting elsewhere.

By invoking procedural objections to block the amendment, the plaintiffs’ challenge threatens to undermine voter-approved reform tools and legislative checks on anti-democratic map-making.

Latest Updates

• Nov. 6, 2025: Plaintiffs filed a motion to drop their lawsuit.
• Nov. 3, 2025: Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied. The court found plaintiffs lacked power to intervene in the legislative process. Plaintiffs also lacked standing because they have not received anything to publish from the House and will not until the special session ends.
• Oct. 31, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their complaint.