Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Gerrymander Referendum

As a result, Virginia’s congressional districts will remain unchanged, which currently sends a U.S. House delegation to Congress consisting of six Democrats and five Republicans. Ironically, the map that remains in effect is essentially a mirror reflection of the partisan breakdown of the vote for the referendum, meaning that Virginia’s current map accurately reflects the political preferences of the Commonwealth’s voting population.

The Virginia Constitution requires that a referendum, as well as any proposed state constitutional amendments, be approved in two successive legislative sessions and that those legislative sessions be split by an intervening election of the House of Delegates in which Virginia voters are given the opportunity to elect Delegates in light of the proposed constitutional amendment.

“This gives voters two opportunities — one indirect, the other direct — to voice their views on the proposed amendment,” wrote Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, who authored the majority opinion. The process “slow-walks” any major constitutional modification to “guard against hasty changes,” noted Justice Kelsey.

The court found that Virginia’s General Assembly did not approve the referendum until “well after” voters began casting ballots in the intervening-election period for the 2025 general election. That flawed procedure rendered the entire process unconstitutional, the court ruled.

“In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement,” wrote Justice Kelsey. “While the Commonwealth is free by its lights to do the right thing for the right reason, the Rule of Law requires that it be done the right way. This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void.”

The ruling also aids in Liberty Counsel’s lawsuit, Bansley v. Nardo, which challenges Virginia’s pro-abortion amendment for the upcoming 2026 ballot. The lawsuit argues that House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR1), which aims to establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the Virginia Constitution, is similarly invalid to the redistricting referendum because Virginia’s House of Delegates missed several key procedural steps mandated by the Virginia Constitution before the amendment can go before the voters. Liberty Counsel represents Plaintiff Charla Bansley, District 3 Supervisor for the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, who asserts that HJR1 fails to meet the requirements of being distributed to all circuit court clerks statewide and posted for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates election.

Because the required notice and posting did not occur in all the state’s circuit courts in the three months before the 2025 House of Delegates election, that cycle cannot satisfy the state constitutional notice obligation and waiting period, which means the 2026 General Assembly session approval of the amendment is “void” and “wholly ineffective,” states t

While Bansley waits to be adjudicated in Bedford County Circuit Court, today’s Virginia Supreme Court referendum ruling held that violation of constitutional procedures “incurably taints” the process and “nullifies its legal efficacy.”

Liberty Counsel’s Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Constitution of Virginia requires strict, step‑by‑step compliance with the amendment process so that voters receive proper notice and can evaluate proposed changes to their governing charter before a consequential election. These procedures exist to protect the people’s right to transparent, orderly constitutional change, and any misstep undermines the integrity of the amendment process and can interfere with the will of the voters. Like the redistricting referendum, House Joint Resolution 1 is invalid because the General Assembly advanced it to a second legislative vote without completing the constitutionally mandated notice and posting requirements that must occur after its first passage. The amendment must be nullified.”