Well, well, well — it turns out the rule of law still means something in Virginia. Who knew? In a refreshing (and frankly overdue) moment of judicial sanity, a Virginia circuit court judge just handed a reality check to lawmakers who thought the Constitution was more of a suggestion than a set of rules. Judge Jack S. Hurley Jr. — remember the name — dropped the hammer this week on a clumsily maneuvered redistricting amendment, striking it down as unconstitutional and, in his words, “void, ab initio.” Translation? From the jump, it was a mess.
Let’s unpack this circus.
Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly — clearly feeling very clever with their majority and a special session at their disposal — decided to slip a little redistricting power grab into a session that was supposed to be about budget matters. Because why not? It’s just the Constitution, right? What could possibly go wrong?
Apparently, a lot.
Turns out, you can’t just hijack a session with a predetermined scope and stuff in your pet project because it feels convenient. According to Judge Hurley, the General Assembly didn’t even follow its own rules. You know, the ones they wrote. The legislature’s call to the Governor for a 2024 Special Session explicitly stated it was for budget issues. Redistricting wasn’t on the agenda. To change that, they needed a unanimous consent or a supermajority. Spoiler: they didn’t get either.
🚨 A Virginia judge has BLOCKED a Democrat-backed redistricting amendment, ruling that the special session was expanded without the necessary votes and that early voting had already begun by that time. pic.twitter.com/Ro4ZFoxEDM
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 27, 2026
But wait, there’s more.
They also attempted to vote on this amendment after more than a million Virginians had already cast early ballots for the 2025 House of Delegates election. Seriously — a million. Judge Hurley rightfully pointed out that pretending Election Day is just one single date and ignoring all those early voters would be, in effect, disenfranchising a massive chunk of the electorate. Something tells me that’s not exactly in line with the Democrats’ usual “every vote counts” slogan — unless, of course, those votes are inconvenient.
But even if you set all that aside (which you shouldn’t), they still failed to meet the basic requirement of posting and publishing the proposed constitutional amendment before the next election. A minor thing like public transparency, right? According to the law, that’s not optional — it’s mandatory. And since they didn’t do it, the votes they took during the 2026 regular session? Worthless. As in, legally ineffective. A lot of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.
So here we are, with Hurley issuing both temporary and permanent injunctions to keep this whole mess from moving forward. A hard stop. Red light. No constitutional amendment. No voter referendum. No end run around the rules.
Let’s call it what it is: a legislative overreach, dead on arrival. And honestly, it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving group of lawmakers. These are the same folks who love to preach about norms, institutions, and the sacred rule of law — until those things get in the way of their political ambitions. Then suddenly, process becomes optional, transparency becomes inconvenient, and the Constitution becomes something you can amend over lunch without anyone noticing.
But the courts noticed.
And with this ruling, Hurley didn’t just toss out a shady amendment attempt — he reaffirmed a foundational principle: that even the legislature has limits. They can’t just twist procedures and rewrite the rules mid-game to get their way. That’s not how a constitutional republic works. Or at least, it’s not how it should work.
So yes, this is a setback for Democrats in Virginia, but more importantly, it’s a win for actual governance, for accountability, and for voters who are sick of being treated like pawns in someone else’s redistricting chess game. Virginia’s Constitution stood firm. Now it’s time for the people in Richmond to start respecting it.
