Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia holds that the legislative process used to submit a proposed constitutional amendment concerning partisan redistricting violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution. The Court concludes that the procedural violation invalidated the referendum vote and that the vote margin does not affect judicial review. The opinion also discusses the timing and scope of judicial review of constitutional-amendment procedures.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia requires the intervening general election to include the full period during which voters may cast ballots, including early voting, rather than only Election Day.
- Whether the General Assembly violated Article XII, Section 1 by approving the proposed constitutional amendment for the first time after voting had begun in the intervening general election.
- Whether the referendum vote could validate an amendment submitted through a constitutionally defective process.
- Whether the margin by which voters approved the amendment affected the court's review or the legal efficacy of the referendum.
Holdings
- The term "general election" in Article XII, Section 1 describes the combined actions of voters casting ballots and election officials receiving those ballots and closing the polls on the last day of voting; it is not limited to Election Day alone.
- Article XII, Section 1 requires an intervening general election after the first legislative vote on a proposed amendment and before the second legislative vote; the General Assembly lacked constitutional authority to proceed when it first voted after voters had already begun casting ballots in that election.
- A favorable referendum vote cannot cure a violation of the mandatory constitutional procedure for proposing and submitting an amendment; the resulting vote is legally ineffective and the proposed amendment is null and void.
- The margin by which voters approved the proposed amendment does not affect the court's constitutional analysis or the validity of the defective amendment process.
Key quotations
“The definition is short and clear: “History confirms that ‘election’ includes both ballot casting and ballot receipt.”” (at 18-19)
“For these reasons, we hold that the definition of “general election” in Article XII, Section 1 describes the combined actions of voters casting ballots and officers of election receiving those votes and closing the polls on the last day of the election.” (at 21-22)
“In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void.” (at 28-29)
Factual background
The General Assembly first voted to propose a constitutional amendment on October 31, 2025, after early voting in the 2025 general election had already begun and more than 1.3 million votes had been cast. It voted again during the 2026 Regular Session, after which the amendment was submitted to Virginia voters on March 6, 2026. The amendment would have temporarily suspended the Virginia Redistricting Commission's role and authorized a highly partisan congressional redistricting map. The voters approved the referendum, but the Supreme Court held that the defective legislative process rendered the vote null and void.
Procedural history
The General Assembly approved a proposed constitutional amendment concerning congressional redistricting and submitted it to Virginia voters. After the referendum, the circuit court ruled that the amendment process violated constitutional and statutory requirements. The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the circuit court's judgments and affirmed, holding that the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 was violated and that the referendum vote was legally ineffective.