It also deals a massive blow to Democrats who sought to shift the state’s congressional split from 6-5 in their favor to 10-1. State spending for the effort was upwards of $5.2 million for the special election, while outside groups raised nearly $100 million to convince voters, according to the New York Times.

At the center of the legal dispute is a technical but consequential question about timing: What qualifies as the “next general election” under the state constitution, and whether lawmakers acted too late by advancing the amendment after early voting had already begun in the state’s elections last year.

Kelsey, writing for the majority, said the Virginia Constitution requires lawmakers to wait until after a full general election has concluded before advancing a constitutional amendment to the next stage of the process. Kelsey wrote that Article XII “requires an intervening ‘general election’ after the first legislative vote” before the General Assembly can legally place a proposed amendment before voters and found that lawmakers advanced their amendment after that general election had already started.

The dissent, written by Chief Justice Cleo E. Powell and joined by two others, accused the majority of rewriting the constitutional meaning of “election” by treating early voting as part of the “general election” under Article XII, arguing that Virginia law has historically treated Election Day as the operative constitutional benchmark.

However, the state constitution requires the legislature to advance a proposed constitutional amendment in two steps — one legislative vote must take place before a general election, and the other must take place after — before lawmakers can place the proposed amendment before voters via a referendum. The requirement builds in accountability for lawmakers by giving voters the chance to oust representatives who voted for the state constitutional amendment if they don’t want the amendment to advance, and it is meant to prevent the state legislature from rushing through a referendum without that input from voters.

The General Assembly did not approve the proposed constitutional amendment until after early voting in the 2025 elections had already begun. Republican-backed challengers argued that once early voting was underway in fall 2025, the election had effectively started, meaning the legislature missed the required constitutional window to act. Attorneys defending the amendment countered that the state constitution contemplates a single Election Day in November, with early voting treated as participation ahead of that fixed date.

In most other contexts, however, Democrats are fiercely defensive of early voting and mail-in voting as integral parts of an election.

The case also raised questions about whether lawmakers improperly expanded the scope of a special legislative session to include redistricting, as well as whether statutory notice requirements tied to the amendment were properly followed. Notably, the court did not wade into the separate dispute over the referendum’s ballot language, which asked voters whether they wanted to “restore fairness” in Virginia’s congressional elections, phrasing that critics argued was politically loaded because the proposed map was expected to heavily benefit Democrats.

During oral arguments last month, several justices pressed attorneys on the real-world implications of both sides’ positions, particularly as early voting has become a dominant feature of modern elections. Questions from the bench suggested some justices on the Virginia Supreme Court had concerns about how to reconcile long-standing constitutional language with evolving voting practices.

The litigation has unfolded against a tight timeline, with the special election taking place on April 21 and oral arguments by the state’s high court on April 27. Under state law, the election had to be certified within 14 days, creating pressure for a decision as election officials warned they were nearing a point at which certification could become impracticable.

A lower court previously blocked certification of the referendum, finding that the amendment process violated constitutional requirements. The state Supreme Court allowed the vote to proceed while it considered the case but declined to lift the certification block in the interim.

The referendum itself passed by fewer than 3 points in the special election. The outcome of the legal case has major political implications, as the proposed districts would have significantly reshaped Virginia’s congressional delegation ahead of the midterm elections and potentially could have netted Democrats four seats.

Republican lawmakers in the state celebrated the court’s decision, including Rep. Jen Kiggins (R-VA), who said the high court decision marked a “victory for Virginians’ right to fair and adequate representation.”

Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, whose administration presided over the state’s court-drawn 2021 congressional maps before Democrats later advanced the disputed referendum effort, said Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and “Democrats in Richmond knowingly violated our constitution to disenfranchise millions of Virginians.”

Honest Elections Project executive director Jason Snead, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said the Virginia Supreme Court deserves “major credit.”

VIRGINIA REDISTRICTING BALLOT AMENDMENT FACES TENSE QUESTIONING FROM STATE SUPREME COURT

“Today’s decision is an enormous victory not just for the rule of law, but also the hundreds of thousands of Virginians who stood to be silenced by Virginia Democrats’ blatantly unconstitutional power grab,” Snead said.

The broader dispute is part of an escalating national mid-decade redistricting fight, with both parties pursuing mid-decade map changes in key states as control of the House hangs in the balance.