So, That New VA Congressional Map That Dems Want Could Get Tossed

The Virginia referendum is over: a new map will give Democrats a 10-1 advantage in congressional districts. It’s a wild map, with several districts originating from Northern Virginia; it looks like an octopus, though some say it’s more of a lobster. Just Google it—you’ll see. We had a chance to end this last year, but Republicans lost the statewide elections, and there are consequences. I don’t like the map, but the GOP lost, and here we are. Also, I’m not against gerrymandering, so everyone relax because a) the Voting Rights Act might get gutted, leading to total Republican control in the South, b) the 2030 census will lead to fewer congressional districts and electoral votes in blue states, and c) this new Virginia map might get overturned.

Re: Virginia, the lobster isn’t cooked yet! It may get thrown out by the Virginia Supreme Court. The Democrat redistricting power grab has already been slapped down by a judge.

“It's the second time Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. has ruled against Democrats'…
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) April 22, 2026

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has more:

Re: Virginia, the lobster isn’t cooked yet! It may get thrown out by the Virginia Supreme Court. The Democrat redistricting power grab has already been slapped down by a judge.

“It's the second time Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. has ruled against Democrats'…
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) April 22, 2026

First passage was invalid. The amendment was taken up during a special session convened in 2024 for budget purposes. The General Assembly's own call to the Governor (under Art. IV, §6 and Art. V, §5) and its governing resolution (HJR 6001) limited the session's scope. Expanding it to include a constitutional amendment on redistricting required a two-thirds vote that never occurred. A Tazewell County judge found this action "void, ab initio."
Art. XII, §1 requires that after first passage, a proposed amendment be "referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates." An election must intervene between first and second passage. Here, first passage occurred during an election cycle — not before an intervening one.
Art. XII, §1 requires the amendment be submitted to voters "not sooner than ninety days after final passage by the General Assembly." The timeline from second passage to the April 21 vote did not satisfy this requirement.
Plus ONE challenge to the proposed maps:
Art. II, §6 requires that "every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory." The proposed congressional maps violate this contiguity requirement (rather badly).
Next stop, court. Stay tuned.