RICHMOND, Virginia – A former Virginia Attorney General says he believes a judge’s ruling that stayed the certification of the commonwealth’s Congressional redistricting is just the beginning of a legal fight that eventually will result in the takedown of the new Democratic-drawn maps.
And, he doesn’t think it will be a long process either.
“I don’t think it won’t take very long,” Ken Cuccinelli said. “I think it will go very fast. They know there’s an election. And even with a delayed primary in August, voting will start in early July. There needs to be enough time for candidate qualification and campaigning.
“Time is of the essence, and a lot of it already has been briefed. So I think the court will rule on it pretty quickly.”
On April 22, Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley issued a ruling blocking the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the commonwealth to redraw its congressional and legislative maps. The ruling came less than 24 hours after Virginia voters approved the measure by a narrow margin.
Hurley’s ruling stops state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which would overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process. The judge said the referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how amendments must be approved and submitted to voters. He said the General Assembly had not properly authorized the plan before it was submitted to voters.
Jay Jones, Virginia’s current AG, said his office plans to appeal Hurley’s decision immediately.
“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the people’s vote,” Jones, a Democrat, said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”
Cuccinelli, who now leads the American Principles Project Election Transparency Initiative sees the referendum as unconstitutional, and he thinks Democrats abused the amendment process. He says the referendum is invalid on multiple procedural grounds.
“I appreciate Hurley’s ruling,” Cuccinelli, a Republican, told Legal Newsline. “But the Virginia Supreme Court is going to decide this.
“I see them taking the steps to move quickly because it’s an election issue. We’re kind of used to checking people’s politics when it comes to issues like this, but I see the Virginia Supreme Court as more ideally focused on its responsibilities than what most Americans are used to seeing. I think you’re going to get an honest ruling here.
“The Democrats in the General Assembly literally avoided the laws and just assumed they could bully the Supreme Court into doing what they want. I don’t think that will work.
“I believe briefs are due today (Thursday) on the first two constitutional issues, and oral arguments could be as soon as Monday. I would not be surprised if there isn’t a ruling in the first half of May.”
Virginia already has delayed its primary election until August 4 because of the redistricting issue.
Cuccinelli said Virginia’s constitution, like most states, requires the General Assembly to pass a proposed amendment twice on either side of the election.
“Virginia has a process to amend its constitution that has the General Assembly pass a proposed amendment and then have a state election — an intervening election — where the new House of Delegates was elected and so forth,” Cuccinelli said. “Then that new General Assembly comes back and has to pass the exact same amendment. The General Assembly passed the amendment for the first time. These are the same Democrats who gave us a 45-day election a few years ago.
“So, the first passage was on Halloween last year. That was six weeks into 2025 election, and more than a million people already had voted. They want to call that the intervening election. That’s pretty brazen. They argue that the election is just when you count the votes. That argument has been rejected in courts across the country.
“The second passage happened January 19. The same provision of the constitution says there has to be a 90-day gap before passing it to voters. But voting started March 6. That’s less than two months after passage.
“I think either or both of those issues could result in a 7-0 vote of justices.”
Cuccinelli also says the Democrats’ say their first passage Halloween vote took place during a special session that begun in May 2024, which was called then to deal with the budget.
“They say they never ended that special session,” he said. “And they even say that starting the regular session didn’t end the special session. They also claim a right to add a totally separate subject to the special session, which requires a two-thirds vote that was never taken.”
And as far as the maps themselves, Cuccinelli said the constitution has a compactness requirement.
“If these maps don’t violate that requirement, it’s of no use at all,” Cuccinelli said.
