Virginia Democrats urgently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that tossed out the April 21 referendum on redistricting, arguing federal intervention is needed after a state court decision it says mixes state and federal law.
The state’s Attorney General moved for an emergency stay, saying the Virginia Supreme Court got it wrong and that this Court can step in when state rulings are “interwoven with the federal law.” The filing aims to freeze a decision that voided the referendum and keep the contested map alive while higher courts weigh in.
Meanwhile the Democratic speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates publicly said, “We respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia.” Behind the scenes, party leaders scrambled: some plotted extreme fixes and others pushed back, leaving the caucus in obvious disarray.
Party panic intensified after reports that Democrats discussed forcing every justice off the state court to revive the so-called lobster map. That scheme didn’t survive long in public view, but the desperation it revealed helps explain why the AG opted for a direct shot at the high court.
The Virginia Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision that effectively killed a heavily gerrymandered plan aimed at flipping as many as four congressional seats. The court’s opinion called the legislative process defective and ruled that the constitutional amendment proposal was tainted by procedural violations.
On March 6, 2026, the General Assembly of Virginia submitted to Virginia voters a proposed constitutional amendment that authorizes partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the Commonwealth. We hold that the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy.
Former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli weighed in, mocking the Democrats’ scramble and arguing that citing federal cases as persuasive authority does not hand jurisdiction to the U.S. Supreme Court. His point is simple: federal citation alone typically won’t create a federal question that lets SCOTUS override a state court’s state-law ruling.
Legal analysts have already called the emergency stay request a long shot. The filing leans on a narrow exception from Moore v. Harper (2023), claiming the state court overstepped and interfered with the legislature’s power over federal elections. Critics say the Virginia court did no such arrogation and merely enforced state constitutional rules about the process.
One prominent legal commentary described the motion bluntly: “As expected, this is a crazy filing.” The critique then lays out two central hurdles for the stay: first, that citing Supreme Court cases as background does not prove a federal question; and second, that the ruling does not meet the extreme standard required to show the court took legislative power away from the General Assembly.
As expected, this is a crazy filing. Virginia makes two arguments in support of its request for an emergency stay.
1. It contends that the state supreme court’s interpretation of the Virginia constitution is “predicated … on a grave misreading of federal law.” But the court merely cited a Supreme Court case as informative on, and supportive of, the general meaning of “election.” This comes nowhere close to meeting the high bar of showing that the court ruled on a federal question.
2. Invoking the narrow exception left open in Moore v. Harper (2023), it contends that the court’s ruling so “transgressed the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that it arrogated to itself the power vested in the state legislature to regulate federal elections.” But no justice is going to find the court’s ruling manifestly bonkers.
Look for this stay application to be denied without any dissent.
The political stakes are obvious: if the stay succeeds, Democrats could preserve a map designed to carve out seats for their advantage. If the stay fails, the Virginia Supreme Court’s finding that the referendum process was unconstitutional stands and the map is dead.
This fight exposes a familiar pattern: when a legal loss hits, some in the party reach for extreme remedies instead of accepting the rule of law. The AG’s SCOTUS filing is that last-ditch move, betting that federal intervention will rescue a partisan outcome that Virginia’s own courts rejected.
Either way, the dispute will test the limits of Moore v. Harper and clarify how much federal courts can or should intervene when state courts interpret their own constitutions. For now, the battle is in the hands of justices who will decide whether this case clears the high bar for extraordinary relief.
Add comment