Lead
A Virginia circuit court on Thursday issued a temporary injunction that prevents a planned April voter referendum to redraw the state’s U.S. House maps, a move that could derail Democrats’ strategy to net four additional seats. The order, granted by Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr., responds to a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, a Democrat, has pledged to appeal; the restraining order is in place until March 18 while early voting is scheduled to begin March 6. If the injunction survives the appellate process, the April 21 referendum could be canceled for this year.
Key Takeaways
- The Tazewell Circuit Court issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday at the request of the RNC and NRCC, pausing a planned April 21 referendum on congressional maps.
- The restraining order remains effective through March 18; Virginia’s early voting is slated to start March 6, creating a narrow legal window for appeals.
- Plaintiffs argue the referendum’s timing and ballot language violate state rules; they were joined by Republican U.S. Reps. Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith on the filing.
- Virginia AG Jay Jones (D) has vowed to appeal Hurley’s ruling; House Speaker Don Scott (D) said he expects the state Supreme Court to allow the vote to proceed.
- This is Judge Hurley’s second rulings against the Democrats’ redistricting approach after a January decision that struck down a related procedural vote in a special session.
- National redistricting fights continue: Republicans project up to nine pickup opportunities in several states, while Democrats expect six gains elsewhere and hoped Virginia could supply up to three more seats or a four-seat swing under the proposed map.
- Democratic lawmakers passed a venue-restriction law sending such suits to Richmond’s circuit court; Republicans contend Tazewell remains a proper forum and prevailed before Hurley.
Background
Mid-decade redistricting has become a national flashpoint after former President Donald Trump encouraged Republican state officials to redraw boundaries in 2025 and 2026 to strengthen GOP prospects in the U.S. House. The effort expanded beyond individual states into a nationwide strategy, with rival parties calculating where map changes could swing enough seats to determine control. Virginia emerged as an important front: Democrats produced a proposed map that their strategists say could gain up to four House seats in the commonwealth.
Legal disputes have followed the fast-moving legislative schedule. Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly passed measures to centralize venue for legal challenges to elections and constitutional amendments in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, and Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill and set the referendum date for April 21. Republicans, however, filed suit in Tazewell County — a conservative jurisdiction in southwest Virginia — arguing that the referendum’s timing and ballot wording are improper.
Main Event
On Thursday, Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. granted a temporary restraining order at the Republicans’ request, halting preparations for the April referendum while the court considers whether the matter should proceed in Tazewell. The plaintiffs — the RNC and NRCC, joined by Reps. Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith — contend the legislature rushed redistricting measures and that the referendum’s phrasing and schedule violate statutory limits tied to intervening elections.
The injunction is narrowly timed: early voting in Virginia is scheduled to begin March 6, and the order runs through March 18. Legal advocates for Democrats say the window leaves little margin for appeals; if higher courts do not lift the restraining order before early ballots are cast, the referendum could be effectively blocked for 2026. Attorney General Jay Jones announced he would appeal immediately.
This ruling follows a January decision by the same judge that found a resolution related to a constitutional amendment had been illegally adopted during a special legislative session. That prior ruling was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, which had indicated it would permit the referendum to proceed while it considered the earlier case — a stance at odds with Hurley’s later Tazewell order.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the dispute turns on venue and timing. Democrats sought to constrain litigation about statewide ballot measures to Richmond’s circuit court to avoid forum-shopping in conservative localities; Republicans countered that existing filings in Tazewell are valid. A key question is whether a single trial-court injunction can override or be reconciled with the state Supreme Court’s prior procedural guidance — an issue likely to land quickly on appellate dockets.
Politically, the ruling raises the stakes for both parties’ House strategies. Republicans are pursuing mid-decade maps they say could net nine seats across Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats counter with potential gains in California and Utah and had targeted Virginia as a place to narrow or eliminate projected GOP net pickups. If the Virginia referendum is delayed or blocked for 2026, Democrats would lose a near-term path to redraw districts before the November elections.
Campaigns and outside groups must now plan contingencies. Organizers who had been preparing outreach, voter-education and early-voting operations tied to the referendum will face uncertainty — and donors may reallocate resources to other battleground states. Courts acting close to voting windows also raise logistical and legal complexities for election administrators who must balance statutory timelines with judicial orders.
Comparison & Data
| Projection | States/Targets | Seats |
|---|---|---|
| Republican mid-decade targets | Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio | Up to 9 |
| Democratic targets | California, Utah (and hopes in Virginia) | 6 (plus up to 3–4 in VA under Democratic map) |
| Virginia referendum timeline | Early voting / Restr. order / Referendum | Mar 6 (early voting), Mar 18 (TRO end), Apr 21 (referendum) |
The table summarizes party projections and the critical Virginia schedule. Projections of seat pickups are party assessments and contingent on map adoption and legal outcomes; they are not guarantees. The timeline highlights how tightly court deadlines overlap with election administration milestones.
Reactions & Quotes
“This ruling is a massive win in defending honest representation for every Virginian,”
Republican National Committee (statement)
The RNC framed the order as protection for voters, emphasizing objections to timing and ballot language. Republicans argue that rushing the process circumvents statutory safeguards tied to intervening elections.
“The Supreme Court of Virginia has already made clear that this matter will go to the voters…the Republicans went back to their friendly judge,”
Don Scott, Speaker, Virginia House of Delegates (D)
Speaker Scott’s comment both affirms confidence in an appeal and signals partisan friction over forum choice; his characterization of Judge Hurley reflects a political judgment by a Democratic leader and is disputed by Republican plaintiffs.
“We will appeal this decision immediately,”
Jay Jones, Virginia Attorney General (D)
AG Jones pledged a prompt appeal, setting up an accelerated appellate timetable if courts prioritize resolution before early voting begins.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the restraining order will be lifted on appeal before early voting begins is unresolved; higher-court timelines and rulings are unpredictable.
- Projected seat gains cited by party strategists (nine for Republicans, six for Democrats, up to four in Virginia) are estimates based on proposed maps and do not guarantee electoral outcomes.
- Assertions that Judge Hurley is explicitly “friendly” to one party reflect political claims rather than judicial findings and remain contested.
Bottom Line
The Tazewell court’s temporary restraining order injects legal uncertainty into Virginia’s redistricting timetable and could prevent an April 21 referendum from taking place if it survives appeal. That outcome would remove one of the most direct mechanisms Democrats were using to revise congressional lines ahead of the 2026 elections and could materially affect both parties’ House strategies.
Resolution now hinges on an expedited appellate fight and on whether the Virginia Supreme Court chooses to intervene and reconcile competing venue rulings. For voters and campaigns, the episode underscores how quickly court deadlines can reshape electoral calendars and the importance of judicial venues in high-stakes redistricting disputes.
Sources
- WTOP — local news report summarizing the Tazewell court ruling and reactions
- The Associated Press — national wire reporting and legal context (news/press)
- Republican National Committee — official party statement (official)
- Office of the Governor of Virginia — official state actions and enacted legislation (official)