Lead: The Virginia Supreme Court on February 13 cleared the way for a planned April 21 referendum that would ask voters to approve a Democratic-sponsored congressional redistricting amendment. The order allows the special election to proceed despite an ongoing lawsuit that challenges the legislature’s procedural handling of the measure. While the court did not resolve the underlying legal dispute, its decision means Virginians can vote on the proposed 10-1 congressional map this spring. Legal challenges are expected to continue after the referendum results are certified.
Key Takeaways
- The Virginia Supreme Court allowed the April 21, 2026 referendum on a Democratic redistricting amendment to proceed, despite an active lawsuit.
- The ballot measure would adopt a proposed “10-1” congressional map that advocates say could yield roughly four additional Democratic seats in the U.S. House.
- A state judge previously blocked the measure, finding procedural faults in the legislature’s initial vote; Democrats appealed to the state appellate courts.
- The court advanced the case to the Virginia Supreme Court because of its public importance, producing a decision that preserves the referendum timetable.
- Defendant-intervenors in the lawsuit are represented by the Elias Law Group; ELG’s chair, Marc Elias, has publicly commented on the likely outcome.
- Opponents, including Virginians for Fair Maps, called the referendum illegal and said they will pursue further legal action following the court’s order.
Background
In January, the Virginia General Assembly approved a constitutional amendment that, if ratified by voters, would change how congressional lines are drawn in the state. The measure was framed by Democratic lawmakers as a corrective to partisan gerrymanders enacted by Republicans in other states and as a way to boost competitive districts in Virginia.
Republican-aligned plaintiffs sued after the legislature’s vote, claiming that lawmakers failed to satisfy procedural requirements during the initial voting step. A state trial judge agreed and temporarily enjoined the referendum, citing those procedural defects.
Democrats quickly appealed the injunction, characterizing the trial ruling as an unprecedented use of the courts to block a public vote. The case was expedited to the Virginia Supreme Court because judges said the questions raised affect urgent issues of statewide public importance.
Main Event
On February 13, the Virginia Supreme Court issued an order allowing the April 21 referendum to move forward while the substantive litigation continues. The court’s procedural ruling does not decide the merits of the procedural challenge but prevents the pendency of the case from halting the scheduled vote.
The referendum asks Virginians to approve a constitutional amendment that would implement a so-called 10-1 congressional map drawn by Democratic lawmakers and their mapmakers. Supporters say the plan would increase the number of districts where Democrats can win, potentially altering Virginia’s congressional delegation by several seats.
Opponents—including the advocacy group Virginians for Fair Maps and Republican-aligned plaintiffs—said the legislature’s internal voting process was flawed and that the referendum is therefore unlawful. Their leaders, including former state Attorney General Jason Miyares and former U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, stated they will continue litigation despite the court permitting the vote.
Practically speaking, the court’s order means that voters will decide the amendment on April 21; however, because the litigation will proceed, a later adverse ruling from the Supreme Court could theoretically invalidate certified results, though such outcomes are rare.
Analysis & Implications
The court’s timing favors democratic participation: allowing the referendum preserves the electorate’s opportunity to weigh in before a final judicial determination. That outcome aligns with a longer-standing principle that courts should be cautious about blocking statewide votes unless the legal defects are clear and irreparable.
Politically, the referendum raises stakes for both parties. If the 10-1 map produces the projected gain of roughly four Democratic seats in Congress, it would shift the balance of Virginia’s delegation and have ramifications for federal races and committee assignments. That potential explains why both national and state actors have invested resources and attention in the dispute.
From a legal standpoint, the case highlights tensions about judicial oversight of legislative procedure. Plaintiffs argue that following prescribed steps protects constitutional processes; defendants counter that tactical litigation can be used to prevent voters from deciding constitutional questions at the ballot box.
Looking ahead, even if voters approve the amendment, continued litigation could delay implementation or prompt emergency appeals to higher courts. Conversely, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the referendum process, the result would cement a new redistricting rule for Virginia’s congressional maps.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Current status | If 10-1 map approved |
|---|---|---|
| Referendum date | April 21, 2026 | Vote held as scheduled |
| Projected congressional seat change | N/A (current delegation set by existing maps) | Potential gain of about +4 Democratic seats (as projected by supporters) |
The table summarizes the immediate procedural outcome and the principal projection offered by map supporters: an estimated net gain of roughly four Democratic seats in Congress. That projection is the principal political rationale for intense litigation and advocacy on both sides.
Reactions & Quotes
“Though we firmly believe this referendum is illegal, the court has allowed it to move forward before final judgment.”
Virginians for Fair Maps (co-chairs Jason Miyares & Eric Cantor)
The group framed the court’s order as a temporary setback and signaled additional legal filings would follow. Their statement underscores that litigation will persist regardless of the April vote.
“The new ‘legal action’ will fail and Virginia voters will decide.”
Marc E. Elias (Elias Law Group founder, public statement)
Marc Elias, whose firm represents defendant-intervenors, publicly predicted the plaintiffs’ further efforts would not prevent the referendum. His comments reflect the defense team’s confidence and foreshadow continued court proceedings if the measure is approved.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the Virginia Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the merits in a way that would overturn certified referendum results remains unresolved.
- The exact numerical seat outcome if the map is implemented depends on future elections and should not be treated as guaranteed; the “+4” projection reflects proponents’ estimates.
- The form and timing of any additional legal filings by opponents (including potential appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court) have not been publicly detailed beyond general statements of intent.
Bottom Line
The Virginia Supreme Court’s order preserves the immediate right of voters to decide the redistricting amendment on April 21, 2026, even as the underlying lawsuit proceeds. That procedural ruling favors near-term democratic participation while leaving open substantial legal questions about legislative procedure and judicial remedies.
For Virginia and national politics, the referendum could reshape the state’s congressional delegation and influence federal-level partisan dynamics if the projected seat gains materialize. Observers should expect an extended legal fight: litigation is likely to continue after the vote, and final resolution may take months or longer depending on appeals.
Sources
- Democracy Docket (news outlet)
- Virginia Judicial System (official/state judiciary)
- Elias Law Group (law firm representing defendant-intervenors)
- Virginians for Fair Maps (advocacy group)