Three million Virginians cast ballots and deserved to have their voices heard.
In Virginia, a court has reminded the body politic that democratic will and constitutional procedure are not always the same thing. A redistricting referendum approved by more than three million voters was struck down by the state's Supreme Court on the grounds that its passage violated the sequencing requirements written into Virginia's Constitution — a ruling authored, with quiet historical irony, by a judge whom the referendum's most prominent champion had himself appointed to the bench over two decades ago. The decision preserves the existing congressional map and delivers a significant blow to Democratic hopes ahead of November's midterm elections, raising enduring questions about the relationship between popular mandate and constitutional constraint.
- More than three million Virginians voted to redraw the state's congressional map, only to have that mandate erased by a 4-3 court ruling weeks later.
- The constitutional flaw was procedural — the referendum skipped a required intervening election between the legislature's first and second passage of the amendment — but its political consequences are enormous.
- The ruling preserves a 6-5 Republican congressional advantage that Democrats had hoped to flip to a 10-1 Democratic majority, reshaping the midterm battlefield overnight.
- Sen. Mark Warner, who donated $100,000 and staked his credibility on the campaign, now faces the additional sting of having the decision written by a judge he personally appointed in 2002.
- Democratic leaders vow to compete in November regardless, framing the courts as one arena and the ballot box as another — but the spending advantage they built for this fight cannot be recovered.
Virginia's Supreme Court struck down a redistricting referendum on Friday that voters had approved just weeks earlier, and the circumstances carried a particular irony: the judge who wrote the majority opinion was one Sen. Mark Warner had appointed to the bench more than twenty years ago.
Warner had invested heavily in the effort — $100,000 in direct contributions, public appearances, and the full weight of his political reputation. In April, Virginia voters approved the measure by a clear margin, with over three million ballots cast in favor of redrawing the state's congressional districts in a way that would have shifted the delegation from a 6-5 Republican advantage to a 10-1 Democratic one.
But Judge D. Arthur Kelsey, writing for a 4-3 majority, found the referendum constitutionally defective. Virginia's Constitution requires an intervening election between the legislature's first and second passage of any proposed constitutional amendment — a sequencing the referendum had not observed. Kelsey, whom Warner had praised in 2002 for his "keen intellect" and "commitment to equal justice," also characterized the proposed map itself as "a highly partisan gerrymandered map."
Warner responded by honoring the ruling while lamenting that millions of voters had been denied their voice. Gov. Abigail Spanberger called it a disappointment but pledged to redirect energy toward the midterms. For Democrats, the loss was both financial and strategic — they had outspent Republicans significantly on the campaign, and the current congressional map, favorable to Republicans, will now remain in place through November.
On Friday, Virginia's Supreme Court invalidated a redistricting referendum that voters had approved just weeks earlier, and the irony cut deep: the judge who authored the decision striking it down was someone Sen. Mark Warner had appointed to the bench more than two decades before.
Warner, a Democrat, had invested heavily in the referendum campaign. He gave $100,000 to the effort, appeared at pro-referendum events, and lent his name and credibility to the push. In April, Virginia voters approved the measure by a clear margin—more than three million people cast ballots in favor of redrawing the state's congressional districts. The referendum promised Democrats a significant advantage heading into November's midterm elections, a prospect that had motivated their substantial spending advantage over Republicans in the campaign.
But on Friday, Judge D. Arthur Kelsey, writing for a 4-3 majority on Virginia's Supreme Court, struck the referendum down on constitutional grounds. Kelsey found that the sequencing of the referendum vote violated Virginia's Constitution, which requires an intervening election between the state legislature's first and second passage of any proposed constitutional amendment. The timing, Kelsey ruled, was improper.
The backstory made the outcome sting. Warner had appointed Kelsey to the Virginia Court of Appeals in 2002, when Warner was governor. At the time, Warner praised Kelsey, then a circuit court judge in Suffolk, as someone who possessed "a keen intellect, a strong work ethic and a commitment to equal justice." Kelsey later served two terms on the appeals court before the Republican-controlled state legislature elevated him to the Supreme Court in 2015, where he has served since.
In his majority opinion, Kelsey detailed what the Democrats' proposed map would have accomplished. The current congressional delegation split 6-5 in Republicans' favor would have flipped to 10-1 in Democrats' favor—a dramatic reversal. Under the new map, roughly 47 percent of Virginians who voted for one party would have been represented by just 9 percent of the state's House delegation, while 51 percent voting for the other party would have commanded 91 percent of the delegation. Kelsey characterized the proposed map as "a highly partisan gerrymandered map."
Warner responded with a statement saying he respected the court's decision but emphasized that "more than three million Virginians already cast their ballots on the amendment and deserved to have their voices heard." He also took a swipe at the Trump administration, saying the President had assumed he could "tilt the playing field and lock in political advantage before a single ballot was cast." Warner pledged that Democrats would still compete everywhere in November and that voters would ultimately have the final say.
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger echoed the disappointment. She called the ruling a letdown but said her focus would shift to ensuring voters had the information they needed for the midterm elections. "In those elections," she said, "we—the voters—will have the final say."
For Democrats, the loss was substantial. They had outspent Republicans significantly on the referendum campaign, and Warner had staked considerable political capital on the outcome. The court's decision meant the current 6-5 Republican advantage in Virginia's congressional delegation would remain in place through the midterms—a major setback for a party that had seen the referendum as a path to competitive advantage in a state trending Democratic.
Citas Notables
More than three million Virginians already cast their ballots on the amendment and deserved to have their voices heard.— Sen. Mark Warner
I am disappointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia's ruling, but my focus as Governor will be on ensuring that all voters have the information necessary to make their voices heard this November.— Gov. Abigail Spanberger
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
So Warner appointed the judge who killed his own redistricting plan. How does that even happen?
It's not that Kelsey was waiting to betray him. Warner appointed him in 2002 to the appeals court. Kelsey was later elevated to the Supreme Court by a Republican legislature in 2015. By the time this case came before the court, Kelsey was operating as a justice, not as Warner's appointee. He made a constitutional argument about sequencing—that the referendum vote violated the state's rules for how amendments have to be passed.
But the voters approved it. Three million people voted yes. Doesn't that matter?
It mattered to Warner and to Governor Spanberger. They both said the voters' will should have been respected. But Kelsey's opinion focused on the procedural violation, not the substance of what voters wanted. He said the legislature didn't follow the constitutional requirement for an intervening election between the first and second passage of the amendment.
And the map itself—what would it have actually done?
It would have flipped Virginia's congressional delegation from 6-5 Republican to 10-1 Democratic. That's a massive swing. Kelsey's opinion noted that under the new map, nearly half of voters for one party would have been represented by just 9 percent of the delegation. That's extreme partisan advantage, which is why he called it a gerrymandered map.
So Democrats were trying to gerrymander, and the court stopped them?
That's one way to read it. But Democrats would say they were responding to an existing Republican gerrymander. The court's job was to interpret the Constitution, and Kelsey found a procedural violation. Whether that was the right call is what Democrats are questioning now.
What happens next for Democrats?
They lost a major advantage they were counting on for the midterms. The 6-5 Republican split stays in place. They'll have to compete in November without the redistricting advantage they'd banked on.