A Tazewell County Circuit Court judge ruled Tuesday that the Virginia General Assembly illegally advanced a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting during an ongoing 2024 special legislative session. Tuesday’s decision voids the amendment and blocks it from going before voters in 2026 unless lawmakers restart the process.
The ruling, issued in McDougle v. Nardo and Scott, strikes down House Joint Resolution 6007 — the resolution that proposed the amendment — and limits lawmakers’ ability to use special sessions to take up major constitutional changes.
Republican legislative leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle and House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, sued House Clerk G. Paul Nardo and House Speaker Don Scott, arguing that Democrats improperly used a budget-focused special session to pass a constitutional amendment unrelated to the purpose for which the session was called. In a 22-page order, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. agreed.
Democratic lawmakers pursued this constitutional amendment which would alter Virginia’s congressional redistricting process amid a national fight over control of the United States House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm election. Following encouragement from President Donald Trump, several Republican-controlled legislatures — including Texas and North Carolina — began advancing redistricting efforts aimed at producing more Republican-leaning districts.
Virginia is currently represented by six Democrats and five Republicans in the House. If the amendment had continued to advance, changes to how congressional districts are drawn could shift partisan lines and result in up to a three-seat gain for Democrats.
Virginia’s 5th District — which includes Charlottesville and is currently represented by Rep. John McGuire (R) — was among the districts discussed as potentially changing under proposed Democratic redistricting scenarios.
Under current law, congressional districts in Virginia are drawn by a bipartisan redistricting commission, with the Virginia Supreme Court stepping in to adopt maps if the commission fails to reach agreement. The proposed amendment would have reduced the Court’s role and allowed the General Assembly to step in and adopt new maps instead of the redistricting commission.
The dispute centers on a special session originally convened by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) in May 2024 to address Virginia’s budget. Although lawmakers eventually passed a budget, the General Assembly did not formally adjourn that special session, leaving it technically open all the way into 2026.
In October 2025 — four days before the House of Delegates election and while the outgoing legislature remained in office — Democratic majorities in the House and Senate used that still-open special session to vote on the redistricting amendment. To do so, lawmakers first passed House Joint Resolution 6006 to expand the scope of allowable business during the special session, then adopted House Joint Resolution 6007 Oct. 31 to advance the amendment.
The court ruled that House Joint Resolution 6001 — the original resolution governing the special session — limited what could be considered and did not authorize consideration of a constitutional amendment restructuring the redistricting process. While Democrats later attempted to broaden that scope, the Court found that doing so required a two-thirds vote that never occurred.
As a result, Hurley concluded that the redistricting amendment was never lawfully put before the General Assembly.
“The court finds that adding House Joint Resolution 6007 … violated House Joint Resolution 428 and House Joint Resolution 6001, and any action taken thereon is an invalid expansion of the General Assembly’s own call to the Governor for the 2024 Special Session," the order states.
Former Attorney General Jason Miyares (R), who issued a legal opinion in October questioning the amendment’s validity, shared on X Tuesday evening that the ruling aligned with concerns he raised while in office.
“In October, I issued an AG’s Opinion that said the Virginia Democrats’ attempt at extreme partisan gerrymandering violated the Virginia Constitution,” Miyares said. “I’m grateful the court confirmed that the General Assembly cannot sidestep constitutional accountability in pursuit of partisan gain.”
The Court also ruled that even if the amendment had been validly passed once, the advancement could not count toward the two approvals required by the Constitution of Virginia.
Under the Constitution of Virginia, constitutional amendments must be passed by two separate sessions of the General Assembly, with a general election for the House of Delegates in between. Because Democrats first passed the amendment Oct. 31 and early voting for the 2025 House election began Sept. 19, the Court held that it could not legally serve as the first of the two required votes because the election had already begun.
As a result, Hurley declared all actions related to the amendment “void ab initio” — legally null from the beginning.
Republican leaders praised the decision, framing it as a defense of constitutional procedure rather than a partisan victory.
In a joint statement released Tuesday, McDougle and Kilgore said the ruling reaffirmed that legislative leaders must follow the Constitution and the General Assembly’s own rules when advancing amendments.
"The court confirmed that Democrat legislative leaders unlawfully expanded a Special Session, violated their own rules and attempted to force through a redistricting constitutional amendment while Virginians were already voting,” the statement read. “This case was never about partisanship. It was about process, fairness and the simple principle that you cannot change the Constitution by ignoring the Constitution.”
Democratic leaders, meanwhile, announced plans to appeal. In a joint statement released Tuesday, Speaker Don Scott and top Democrats in both chambers said the ruling would not stop their effort to put the amendment before voters.
“Nothing that happened today will dissuade us from continuing to move forward and put this matter directly to the voters,” the statement read. “Republicans who can’t win at the ballot box are abusing the legal process in an attempt to sow confusion and block Virginians from voting. We will be appealing this ruling immediately and we expect to prevail.”
The Court warned that allowing lawmakers to use an open special session to pass constitutional amendments that are unrelated to the session’s purpose would undermine legislative procedure and weaken constitutional safeguards. The Court wrote that such actions would “trample” the procedural rights of the minority.
The case will now move up to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the future of the redistricting amendment — and how far lawmakers can stretch special sessions — will be decided.
Read More
Student Council passes resolution to support Beardsley in the name of stability
By Jaylynn Perez | 4 hours agoStudent Council revisited a resolution that called for institutional stability amid the University’s presidential tradition.
Virginia Senate Bill 49 looks to reform gubernatorial appointment process
By Naren Senthilkumar | 16 hours agoThe bill would require appointees to satisfy all statutory requirements, take the oath of office and be confirmed by the General Assembly before entering office.
Student survey highlights favoritism in club recruitment
By Jaylynn Perez | 18 hours agoOut-of-state students at the University reported feeling disproportionately disadvantaged during club recruitment compared to in-state students, according to a survey released to approximately 4,000 second-year students
