Context:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene after the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a proposed redistricting plan that would have heavily favored Democrats, affirming a state ruling that the referendum process violated Virginia’s constitution. The decision leaves in place the Virginia court’s ruling and the outcome of the 2026 redistricting vote, which would have shifted seats from a 6-5 GOP-leaning map to a 10-1 Democratic tilt, had the amendment passed. Virginia officials argued the state court misinterpreted federal law and usurped legislative powers over federal elections, while critics warned the move nullified the voices of millions of Virginians. The ruling signals limited federal involvement in a dispute centered on state constitutional procedures and partisan redistricting, with the next steps centering on Virginia’s electoral framework and potential further litigation. Acknowledging political fallout, Governor Spanberger framed the decision as a broader nullification of the electorate, as opponents prepare for continued contest over election rules.

Dive Deeper:

• The Supreme Court rejected the Democrats’ emergency application for a stay on the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down the redistricting referendum process, with no dissents reported by NBC News.

• Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger criticized the decision, claiming it equates to nullifying the votes of more than three million Virginians and tying federal action to censorship of electoral outcomes.

• The Virginia Supreme Court had ruled 4-3 that the legislative process used to place the redistricting proposal before voters violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution, and must be redone in a lawful manner.

• The court’s decision specified that the General Assembly needed two separate legislative sessions with an intervening election to approve a constitutional amendment authorizing partisan gerrymandering.

• The proposed amendment would have altered Virginia’s congressional districts from a 6-5 split to a 10-1 Democratic advantage, contingent on voter approval of the referendum.

• Virginia Democrats argued to the high court that the state court misread federal law by treating Election Day as more than a single-day event and by improperly expanding legislative authority over federal elections.

• The episode reflects ongoing tensions between state-level redistricting processes and federal courts, with the immediate aftermath focusing on procedural validity and potential future legislative moves in Virginia.