Virginia Congressional Redistricting Challenge (McDougle)

An anti-voting lawsuit challenging the Virginia legislature’s special session to counteract GOP nationwide redistricting efforts.

Background

Republican state lawmakers, and one citizen member, on the Virginia Redistricting Commission filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the legislature’s special session called to amend the state’s constitution to begin redistricting. Plaintiffs assert only the governor, not the speaker of the house, may convene or expand the scope of a special session. The lawsuit argues the legislature violated the state’s constitution, and seeks to block introduction of the amendment.

Why It Matters

Virginia is the second state, after California, to potentially net seats for Democrats in the nationwide redistricting war sparked by President Donald Trump’s intent to secure maximum GOP advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. Redistricting in the state could result in two to three additional seats for Democrats, counteracting new GOP seats created in Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina.

Latest Updates

• Feb. 13, 2026: The Virginia Supreme Court allowed the referendum to move forward while the case proceeds. Voters will have a say on the new redistricting plan.
• Feb. 4, 2026: The Court of Appeals asked the Virginia Supreme Court to review defendants’ appeal of the lower court’s order blocking the legislature’s redistricting effort. Plaintiffs do not object.
• Feb. 2, 2026: Virginia Attorney General Jones seeks to intervene in the lawsuit.
• Jan. 28, 2026: Defendants appealed the court’s ruling to the state court of appeals.
• Jan. 27, 2026: The court found the bill to amend the constitution during the last special session void and granted a temporary and permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs.
• Jan 21, 2026: The court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Jan. 16 2026: The constitutional amendment passed the Senate.
• Jan. 13, 2026: The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The constitutional amendment may be introduced when the new legislative session begins on Jan. 14.
• Jan. 6, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to block the proposed constitutional amendment from being introduced when the new legislative session begins on Jan. 14.
• Dec. 16, 2025: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Dec. 12, 2025: The court will hold a hearing on proposed intervenor-defendants’ motion to intervene and motion to transfer venue.
• Dec. 8, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to proposed intervenor-defendants’ motions to intervene and transfer venue.
• Nov. 18, 2025: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Proposed intervenor-defendants filed a proposed motion to dismiss and notified the court of the plaintiffs’ voluntary motion to dismiss in Jett.
• Nov. 4, 2025: Plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Nov. 4, 2025: Proposed intervenor-defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Nov. 3, 2025: Proposed intervenor-defendants move to transfer venue to the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, where the legislature conducts its official business.
• Oct. 29, 2025: The House passed the proposed constitutional amendment. Earlier in the day, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order to block the legislation from proceeding. The Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore have sought intervention as defendants in the lawsuit.
• Oct. 28, 2025: Plaintiffs’ filed their complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order.