Judge Strikes Down Virginia Redistricting Amendment, Voids Special Election Results
A Virginia judge has voided a voter-approved redistricting measure and blocked certification of the election results, finding that the amendment violated multiple provisions of the state constitution and was invalid from the start, according to a final judgment entered April 22 in Tazewell County Circuit Court.
Judge Jack Hurley ruled that the proposed constitutional amendment and the legislative steps used to advance it were “void ab initio” and ordered state officials not to certify the results of the April 21 special election or take any action to implement new congressional district maps.
The term “void ab initio” means a law is treated as if it never existed. Courts apply it when a measure is adopted in a way that violates constitutional requirements, making the entire process legally invalid from the start.
The decision effectively nullifies votes cast in the referendum, despite preliminary results indicating that a narrow majority of voters approved the measure. The ruling also imposes a permanent injunction barring election officials from altering voter records, redrawing precincts, or conducting future elections under the proposed map.
Republican organizations and two sitting members of Congress brought the case, arguing that the redistricting effort would unlawfully reshape their districts. The judge agreed, finding that the challengers had standing and faced irreparable harm if the map were implemented.
At issue is how Virginia’s constitution governs amendments. Under state law, a proposed constitutional amendment must pass through two separate sessions of the General Assembly, with a general election of the House of Delegates occurring between those votes. The court found that this requirement was not met and that the next qualifying election cannot occur until 2027. State constitutions often require this multi-step process to ensure that major changes are considered over time and not approved in a single legislative cycle.
Judge Hurley also identified a series of procedural violations tied to how the measure was advanced. Lawmakers exceeded the scope of the 2024 special legislative session when they introduced the amendment, and the timing of the election did not comply with constitutional requirements. Virginia law requires a minimum 90-day period between legislative approval of an amendment and the start of voting. Early voting began on March 6, less than 90 days after passage, which the court found did not meet that standard. Special sessions are typically limited to specific topics set in advance, and measures introduced outside that scope may be subject to challenge.
Ballot language was another focus of the ruling. Judge Hurley found that the wording was “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the amendment as enacted by the General Assembly. Election law requires ballot questions to clearly and accurately describe what voters are being asked to approve. Courts may invalidate a measure if the wording could mislead voters or omit key details about its effect.
Legal challenges to election laws often turn on whether the government followed required procedures. These rules control how laws are passed, not what the laws say. When those steps are not followed, courts may invalidate the measure regardless of whether voters approved it.
State officials opposed the lawsuit and sought to dismiss the claims, arguing that the case should not proceed. The judge rejected those arguments, denying motions to dismiss and overruling claims of immunity. The court also denied a request to pause the ruling while an appeal is pursued, meaning the injunction remains in effect.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones has stated that the state will appeal the decision.
