Virginia Democrats tried to gerrymander the state's congressional map into a 10-1 majority, got caught violating their own constitution, and are now asking…
The bottom line
Virginia Democrats tried to gerrymander the state’s congressional map into a 10-1 majority, got caught violating their own constitution, and are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore that. It will not work. The case belongs entirely to state law, and SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to save them from the consequences of their own procedural shortcuts.
This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.
What they actually did
The press is covering this as a tragedy for democracy. It isn’t. It’s what happens when you skip steps.
In October 2025, Virginia Democrats called a special session for budget purposes. While they had everyone in the room, they tacked on a proposed constitutional amendment that would let the legislature temporarily draw new congressional maps. It passed October 31, 2025 on a party-line vote.
The problem was already baked in by then: early voting in the 2025 Virginia House of Delegates general election had started on September 19, 2025. Over 1.3 million Virginians had already cast ballots before legislators voted on that amendment text for the first time.
Virginia’s Constitution, Article XII, Section 1, requires a proposed amendment to pass through two separate General Assembly sessions with an intervening general election between them. The rule isn’t obscure. It’s been there for generations, and its purpose is exactly what you’d think — to give voters a chance to weigh in on proposed changes before they’re locked in. Democrats knew the requirement. They just decided they were in too much of a hurry.
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled May 8, 2026 in Scott v. McDougle, 4-3, that the legislature’s first vote came after the 2025 general election had already begun, meaning there was no valid intervening election. Justice Arthur Kelsey wrote the majority opinion: the procedural defect “incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy.” The 2021 maps under Article II, Section 6-A remain in effect for 2026.
The ballot question was a fraud on its face
Even setting aside the procedural problem entirely, the April 2026 referendum was designed to mislead.
The ballot question read: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections?”
“Restore fairness.” That was the framing they chose.
What they did not tell voters was that the maps being proposed would shift Virginia from its current 6-5 Democrat-Republican congressional delegation to a 10-1 Democrat-Republican split. In a state that has trended purple, where Donald Trump came within four points of winning in 2024, the legislature was asking voters to rubber-stamp a gerrymander that would have handed Democrats near-total control of the congressional delegation regardless of how the electorate actually voted. The word “fairness” doesn’t survive contact with those numbers.
Why the SCOTUS appeal is a joke
On May 11, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reinstate the struck-down maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.
It has essentially no chance of working.
SCOTUS has two federal hooks Jones is trying to use. The first is a definition dispute about what constitutes “Election Day” under federal law. The second invokes Moore v. Harper (2023), where SCOTUS said state courts cannot go beyond “ordinary bounds of judicial review” when interpreting state election laws that govern federal elections.
Republicans are right that neither hook works. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled on a question of state constitutional procedure — whether the legislature followed Article XII, Section 1 when it proposed the amendment. That’s state constitutional law, and SCOTUS doesn’t review state supreme courts on their own constitutions. The independent state legislature doctrine from Moore v. Harper cuts the other direction anyway, because the Virginia Supreme Court was enforcing the state constitution’s own amendment rules, not inventing new ones.
Beyond the jurisdictional problem, the Purcell principle creates a massive practical obstacle. Federal courts are extremely reluctant to change election rules close to an election. With 2026 congressional primaries approaching, there is essentially no world where SCOTUS reaches in and orders Virginia to use a different map that was already ruled unconstitutional by the state’s highest court.
The age-lowering plan was court-packing, and they know it
Before settling on the SCOTUS appeal, some Virginia Democrats floated a different scheme: lower the mandatory retirement age for Virginia Supreme Court justices from 73 to 54. Every sitting justice is over 54. Every single one would have been forced off the bench. The legislature could then appoint an entirely new court packed with justices who would reverse the ruling.
The proposal apparently reached U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries during a private call with Virginia’s congressional delegation. It was published as a serious idea in progressive outlets before Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell killed it, calling it “a pretty extreme overreaction.” Governor Spanberger said no when reporters asked her about it directly.
Good for them for rejecting it. But the fact that it was proposed at all, that it reached the congressional leadership level before getting killed, tells you something real about where these people’s heads are. When you lose a court case because you cheated on the procedure, and your first instinct is to abolish the court, you have already conceded you were wrong on the merits. You’re just looking for a way to not care.
Virginia Democrats and the pattern of not caring
I’ve been watching this story for months and the redistricting fight doesn’t exist in isolation from everything else happening in Virginia right now.
SB 749 and HB 217 passed this session — an assault weapons ban that makes Virginia the first Southern state to go there. HB 40 banned ghost guns. The state is stacking restrictions on gun owners while simultaneously gerrymandering the legislature to make it harder to vote those restrictions back out. The redistricting fight was never just about congressional maps. It was about locking in the policy agenda before voters could respond to it.
That’s what makes the procedural shortcuts so revealing. They passed a constitutional amendment proposal in a session called for budgetary purposes, rushed it to an April referendum, and skipped the intervening election the constitution plainly requires. It wasn’t sloppy. They knew exactly what they were doing. They needed the maps in place before November 2026, and the amendment process was something to route around.
Justice Kelsey’s majority in Scott v. McDougle said the legislature’s vote “incurably taints” the referendum. He’s right. Virginia’s amendment process requires two separate legislative sessions, an intervening election, 90 days of public notice before the referendum, and posting at every circuit clerk’s office in the state. Each step is there for a reason. You have to make your case, survive an election while making it, then come back and make it again. That’s the whole point.
Democrats skipped the part where they survive an election.
What happens next
The 2021 maps remain in effect for 2026. SCOTUS will almost certainly decline to intervene. Republicans are on strong legal ground when they say the court has no jurisdiction over a state constitutional question.
Virginia Democrats will try again if they hold the legislature after 2026. If they run a clean process that actually follows Article XII, Section 1, the fight goes to the voters with full information. That’s the legitimate path. I’ll fight it on the merits then.
For now, gun owners in Virginia are looking at an assault weapons ban that kicks in July 1, 2026, congressional maps they had no say in picking, and a legislature that floated abolishing its own Supreme Court when it didn’t get the ruling it wanted. The courts held this time. That’s not nothing. But it’s not over either.
Get the Weekly Briefing
New analysis delivered every week. Court decisions, case updates, and expert commentary.