Virginia Supreme Court Overturns Gerrymandering Maps in 4-3 Decision: What It Means for 2024 Elections

The Virginia Supreme Court delivered a 4-3 decision striking down the state’s recently enacted congressional maps, which were designed to give Democrats four additional seats in the upcoming midterm elections. The maps were intended to counter Republican gerrymanders in states like Texas. Scott v. McDougle, the case at the heart of the ruling, exposed deep divisions among the justices over the interpretation of the word “election” in the Virginia state constitution.

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Court Splits Over Constitutional Amendment Process

The dispute centers on a provision in the Virginia Constitution governing constitutional amendments. To amend the constitution, the legislature must:

• Propose an amendment via legislative vote.
• Hold a general election for the House of Delegates after the proposal.
• Secure a second legislative vote approving the same amendment.
• Submit the amendment to voters for approval in a referendum.

In 2020, Virginia voters amended the constitution to impose anti-gerrymandering safeguards. The recent amendment, however, temporarily bypassed these protections to redraw the state’s congressional maps.

Majority Cites Early Voting as Disenfranchisement

The majority opinion, authored by the court’s conservative justices, argued that the recent amendment was invalid because the legislature proposed it in October 2025 after early voting had already begun. The majority claimed that 1.3 million Virginians had already cast ballots before the amendment was proposed, effectively denying them the opportunity to vote for lawmakers who opposed it.

The majority’s reasoning hinged on the timing of the amendment’s proposal relative to early voting, arguing that voters were disenfranchised because they could not express support or opposition to the amendment when casting their ballots for state lawmakers.

Dissent Rejects Majority’s Interpretation

The three dissenting justices, led by Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons, rejected the majority’s argument, calling it an overly restrictive interpretation of the constitutional amendment process. The dissent argued that the amendment process was valid because it followed the required legislative steps and did not violate the constitution’s text or intent.

The dissent also criticized the majority for focusing on a narrow procedural issue rather than the broader goal of the constitutional amendment process: ensuring fair representation for Virginia voters.

Textualism Fails to Resolve the Dispute

Both the majority and dissent cited dictionaries, historical sources, and past precedents to support their interpretations of the word “election.” The justices’ inability to agree on a single definition highlights the limitations of textualism in resolving complex constitutional disputes. Neither opinion provided a persuasive or definitive answer to the central question: What is the relevant provision of the Virginia Constitution actually supposed to accomplish?

“Rather than producing two eye-glazing opinions fighting over the meaning of a word whose definition appears to shift depending on both linguistic and historical context, the justices would have produced a better opinion if they had asked a more basic question: What is the relevant provision of the Virginia Constitution actually supposed to accomplish?”