The Virginia House of Delegates convened on Oct. 27, 2025 at the state Capitol in Richmond for a special session called by Speaker Don Scott. On a party-line vote, Democrats approved a procedural resolution expanding the session's scope to include a proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting, a move Republicans denounced as unconstitutional and politically motivated just one week before the Nov. 4 election.
Two national Republican groups and two Virginia Republican members of Congress on Wednesday asked a Tazewell County judge to block the state from holding an April 21 referendum on a proposed congressional redistricting amendment, escalating a high-stakes fight that could reshape Virginia's congressional map ahead of the midterms.
The lawsuit, filed in Tazewell County Circuit Court, seeks an emergency order to stop state and local election officials from moving forward with the planned vote while the case is litigated.
The action follows last week's ruling by the Supreme Court of Virginia allowing that the vote can proceed while the court reviews an appeal of the lower court's ruling from last month that struck down the underlying redistricting amendment as unlawful.
In an expedited move, the state's high court said its order "has no effect on the referendum scheduled for April 21, 2026," clearing the way for voters to decide the fate of the proposal even as legal challenges continue.
The plaintiffs -- the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, U.S. Rep. Ben Cline, R-Botetourt, and U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, -- argue that Democrats' effort to fast-track the amendment violates the Virginia Constitution and amounts to an unlawful partisan power grab.
In the emergency motion, the plaintiffs asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Virginia's commissioner of elections, members of the State Board of Elections and several Tazewell County election officials.
They contend the court should intervene immediately to "preserve the status quo" and prevent what they describe as "irreparable harm" before a hearing can be held. They have requested a hearing and relief before March 2.
A temporary restraining order would act as a short-term pause on the referendum. A preliminary injunction, if granted, would extend that pause while the broader lawsuit proceeds.
The legal challenge marks the latest turn in a months-long battle over a mid-decade redistricting amendment advanced by Democratic lawmakers earlier this year.
RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement that Democrats are attempting to "ram through" an illegal redistricting scheme that the Tazewell County court has already called "a blatant abuse" of power.
"Despite nearly half of Virginians supporting President Trump, Abigail Spanberger and Democrats are working to silence voters and lock in permanent political control," Gruters said.
"They're ignoring the state Constitution, misleading voters, and rushing a sham election. The RNC is stepping in to stop this power grab and defend Virginia voters who would be effectively disenfranchised by Democrats."
NRCC Chairman Richard Hudson echoed that argument, saying Democrats are "ignoring their own Constitution and trying to rig the system" in their favor.
"This is a reckless power grab designed to rush a sham process, mislead voters with deceptive ballot language, and lock in one-party control before Virginians have a fair say," Hudson said.
"The NRCC is proud to fund this legal fight and work alongside the RNC to stop the scheme and defend honest representation for every Virginian."
At issue is the proposed constitutional amendment that -- if approved by voters -- would allow a mid-decade overhaul of Virginia's current congressional by the state legislature. Republicans argue the amendment process is procedurally flawed and constitutionally defective.
Under the Virginia Constitution, amendments must be approved by the General Assembly and then submitted to voters no sooner than 90 days after final passage. Republicans say the amendment received final passage Jan. 16, but Democrats scheduled early voting to begin March 6 -- less than 90 days later -- in violation of that requirement.
The lawsuit also challenges the ballot language approved by Democratic lawmakers, which states that the amendment would "restore fairness."
Republicans argue that characterization is misleading, contending the amendment would replace Virginia's current nonpartisan redistricting framework with a system that would "unduly favor" Democrats.
In addition, the complaint asserts that the amendment improperly combines multiple unrelated provisions, violating the Virginia Constitution's single-subject rule, which requires proposed amendments to address only one subject.
Alongside California, Virginia has become one of Democrats' best opportunities to gain U.S. House seats in the upcoming midterms through redistricting. Under the current map, Democrats hold a narrow 6-5 edge in Virginia's congressional delegation. The proposed map would boost that advantage to 10-1.
President Donald Trump received 46% of the vote in Virginia in 2024, Republicans note, but they contend the new map would reduce GOP representation to roughly 9% of the delegation.
Democrats reject those characterizations and say the referendum is proceeding lawfully.
House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, accused Republicans of trying to derail the vote after failing in earlier court efforts.
"Republicans are terrified of the ballot box," Scott said in a statement. "The Supreme Court of Virginia has already requested a briefing and approved the referendum going forward as planned. This is yet another attempt to judge-shop a complaint to a friendly venue after the Supreme Court refused their earlier efforts. Voters will decide this referendum."
Republicans have also pointed to remarks made by Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger during the 2025 campaign, when she said, "I have no plans to redistrict Virginia." They argue the current push undercuts that pledge.
Democrats have maintained that the amendment process is consistent with constitutional requirements and that voters, not courts, should decide whether to adopt the new map.
The emergency motion filed this week focuses narrowly on halting the referendum before ballots are printed and early voting begins. The plaintiffs argue that once the election machinery is set in motion, the alleged constitutional violations cannot be undone.
If the Tazewell County court grants a temporary restraining order, election officials would be barred from proceeding with steps necessary to hold the April 21 vote until further hearings are held.
If the court denies the request, preparations for the referendum would continue as scheduled.
The case now sets up a potential clash between circuit court proceedings and actions already underway at the state Supreme Court, which has allowed the referendum to move forward while briefing continues.
A hearing on the injunction has been set for Thursday afternoon.