The Supreme Court of Virginia has denied a motion from Attorney General Jay Jones, D-Va., to nix an injunction that blocks the state Board of Elections from certifying the election results of Democrats’ attempt to gerrymander the commonwealth’s congressional districts.
“Upon consideration whereof, the Court denies the motion,” the court’s short rejection said Tuesday. Jones filed a motion to stop a Tazewell Circuit Court’s blanket ruling that invalidated the entire gerrymander measure election, declared it unconstitutional from the beginning, and blocked the vote from being officially certified. The state high court’s denial is similarly plenary.
As Republican state Del. Wren Williams said, “One sentence. No dissent. No partial relief.”
While the court did not rule on the merits of the case, the denial of the motion means the Tazewell ruling in Republican National Committee v. Koski will remain in effect while the court considers the several cases challenging the gerrymandering referendum that are making their ways through the judicial system.
On Monday, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli speculated that the Supreme Court leaving the injunction in place could indicate the court’s willingness to invalidate the entire gerrymander, and Williams described the decision as a “strong signal that process matters in Virginia.”
Process has been at the heart of the constitutional questions from the beginning of the gerrymander push back in October 2025, and is the primary source for legal challenges to the referendum.
As The Federalist reported, one case argued before the Supreme Court on Monday, Scott v. McDougle, deals with a rigged special session in 2025, where the Democrats in the General Assembly rammed through the initial passing of the referendum four days before an election — after more than 1.3 million Virginians had voted due to the commonwealth’s 45-day voting marathon before “Election Day.” Those Virginians had no idea they would be essentially voting for or against that referendum — a seemingly blatant breach of rules requiring two different General Assemblies to approve a referendum with an intervening election of the General Assembly, in order to allow voters to have a say before the referendum is itself placed on the ballot.
Democrats also passed it in apparent contravention of the rules of the special session, which is limited in scope and was not called to deal with such a referendum.
If Williams is correct that the Supreme Court takes process seriously, Scott v. McDougle is almost certain to invalidate the referendum. However, the case in which the Tazewell Circuit Court issued the injunction (left in place by the Supreme Court on Tuesday) addresses a different set of procedural issues related to the constitutionally required second passage of the referendum and a mandated waiting period before it is presented to voters.
Among other things, that case raises the issue of the required 90-day waiting period between final passage of a referendum and its submission to voters. Since final passage happened on Jan. 16, 2026, “the earliest that voting can begin is April 16, 2026” (emphasis in original). However, because of the 45 days of early voting, voters began casting ballots on the redistricting measure on March 6, only 49 days after final passage.
The Tazewell case also addresses the issue of the extremely lopsided ballot language, claiming that gerrymandering would “restore fairness in the upcoming elections” — a point of contention that the Tazewell court called “flagrantly misleading.” Jones attempted to brush off objections to the language by dancing around the concern in his defense, calling the wording “rhetorical choices.”
Cuccinelli said Monday that he believes the Scott v. McDougle case in the Supreme Court has the highest chance of being successful of all the cases, and that the high court not moving quickly on the merits of the RNC v. Koski case in Tazewell could indicate willingness to rule in favor of the anti-gerrymander side.
