Virginia’s current congressional map will remain in place for the 2026 midterms after the Virginia Supreme Court ruled on April 28, 2026 against certifying the results of a constitutional amendment voters had narrowly approved just a week earlier, finding that lawmakers had violated their own procedural rules in passing the measure.
What the Amendment Would Have Done
The measure, House Joint Resolution 6007, would have amended Virginia’s constitution to let the General Assembly redraw the state’s congressional district lines in the middle of the decade, rather than only after each decennial census as current law requires. Supporters, largely Virginia Democrats who control the legislature, said the change was needed to give the state the same option Republican-controlled legislatures had already used in Texas and Missouri, and that Democratic-leaning California had used with its own Proposition 50 — redrawing maps mid-decade for partisan advantage. Opponents, including Virginia Republicans and several good-government groups, argued that mid-decade redistricting for partisan gain is harmful regardless of which party does it, and that amending the constitution to formally authorize it would entrench the practice in Virginia long after the current political fight has passed. The amendment’s text, HJ6007, did not itself draw new lines; it would only have granted the General Assembly the authority to do so, leaving the actual map-drawing to a future legislative session had the amendment taken effect.
A Procedural Challenge Before the Vote
Before the measure ever reached voters, a circuit court judge ruled that the General Assembly had violated its own procedural rules in passing the resolution through the two successive legislative sessions required to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot — it was first passed on October 31, 2025, and affirmed by a newly elected legislature on January 16, 2026. That circuit court ruling found the amendment invalid, but the case was immediately appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, which allowed the referendum to proceed on its scheduled date while the appeal continued rather than halting the vote outright. Virginia’s constitution requires that any proposed amendment pass the General Assembly in identical form in two separate sessions, with a House of Delegates election falling in between, specifically so that voters have a chance to weigh in on the legislature’s makeup before a constitutional change is finalized — the same safeguard the circuit court found had been shortchanged.
Voters Approve, Then the Court Rules Against Certification
Virginia voters narrowly approved the amendment on April 21, 2026, by a margin of 51.69%. A week later, the Virginia Supreme Court completed its review of the procedural challenge and ruled against certifying and implementing the results, meaning the amendment did not take effect despite passing at the ballot box. The court’s ruling turned on the process lawmakers used to advance the measure rather than on the substance of mid-decade redistricting itself. Turnout for the April referendum was notably lower than in a typical November general election, something both sides acknowledged complicated efforts to read the result as a clear mandate either way.
Two Views on the Outcome
Amendment supporters, including Democratic legislative leaders, called the ruling a technicality that overturned the clearly expressed will of Virginia voters, and some suggested the procedural objections were a pretext raised by opponents who could not defeat the measure at the ballot box. Republican officials and the groups that brought the original procedural challenge said the ruling simply enforced rules the legislature itself is bound to follow when amending the state constitution, arguing that if lawmakers can skip required steps whenever they have the votes, the amendment process loses its meaning. Both sides agree the ruling leaves Virginia’s existing congressional map, drawn through the redistricting process that followed the 2020 Census, in place for the 2026 elections. Legal scholars who tracked the case noted that Virginia’s dispute differed from fights in states like Texas and California in one key respect: it was a procedural challenge over how the amendment was passed, not a constitutional challenge to redistricting itself, meaning the ruling sets no direct precedent for whether mid-decade maps are lawful once properly enacted.
What’s Next
Virginia’s current district lines will govern the state’s U.S. House races in the November 3 midterms. Amendment supporters have signaled they may try again in a future legislative session, this time following the procedural steps the circuit court found were skipped, though that would take at least two more years given the two-session requirement for constitutional amendments. The episode adds Virginia to a growing list of states — alongside California, Texas and Missouri — where the question of whether legislatures should be able to redraw congressional maps mid-decade, and under what rules, has become one of the most closely watched fights in American redistricting law heading toward the 2030 Census. Virginia Democrats hold narrow majorities in both legislative chambers heading into the 2026 session, meaning any renewed push would again depend on the outcome of state legislative elections before it could clear the two-session threshold a second time.
Photo: Dougtone / BY-SA via flickr
