Panicking Virginia Democrats now think their gerrymander will fail in court, triggering infighting

MSN ^ | 05/06/2026 | Michael Schwarz

[Trump20162020]

Virginia Democrats won a narrow victory that could turn into a black eye for the party.

In a clip posted to the social media platform X, former Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine reported that leading Democrats in the Old Dominion believe their redistricting plan, approved by voters last month, will not survive in court.

"What I was told is they now think it's less than 50 percent that the court will let the certification go through," Turrentine said in a clip posted to the social media platform X.

"The time, they don't believe, is on their side," he added moments later. "And what apparently transpired over the weekend -- and this person would know; they're in contact with the people I'm about to say -- is that the governor's staff is now snipping at the Senate majority leader and House Speaker that they warned them last fall this would not pass legal review."

---

TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: gerrymander; gerrymandering; virginia

[KevinB]

I am a VA lawyer and have dug into this. There are four very good arguments that the referendum was illegitimate, any one of which justifies nullifying the result. I will be surprised if the VA Supreme Court allows it to stand.

[chickenlips]

The Dims will intimidate the judges and they will vote in favor of it.

[Magnum44]

[kawhill]

“Panicking Virginia Democrats now think their gerrymander will fail in court, triggering infighting”. That’s a little exciting.

[FirstFlaBn]

Gee, how could this happen with a free press keeping a close eye on things?

[Sarah Barracuda]

LOL LOL serves them right..my question is lets say it does fail and every single Republican state that has gone ahead with redistricting goes through, can we keep the house?

[Nervous Tick]

Spanberger’s “albino privilege” won’t be enough to drag this stinker over the finish line??!? 😂

[AppyPappy]

The biggest problem is that it started a conversation on gerrymandering.

[Steely Tom]

Gee, how could this happen with a free press keeping a close eye on things?

That's funny.

[bankwalker]

maybe her “vagina privilege” can be used as a last resort ...

[Persevero]

Oh the irony if all those states redistrict in the R favor and then the Virginia effort gets nullified! Oh please

[Fai Mao]

” lets say it does fail and every single Republican state that has gone ahead with redistricting goes through, can we keep the house?”

Yes.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Really, well let’s hope the courts rule in our favor, so it basically all boils down to Virginia

[frank ballenger]

That’s encouraging.

And apologies for my past anti-lawyer remarks which are not intended to insult FR lawyers.

[Political Junkie Too]

And that election cost $5.2 million of the taxpayers' money.

-PJ

[rlmorel]

Hey, lawyers gotta have thick skins!

I have known lawyers who enjoy those jokes…:)

[KevinB]

And apologies for my past anti-lawyer remarks which are not intended to insult FR lawyers.

No offense taken. There are, of course, many many good lawyers fighting for the things we believe in.

[blitz128]

Sounds like they didn’t follow the legal path for constitutional amendment, and a judge told them that before putting on ballot

Maybe all the crying about republicans not putting money in to this was justified

Dims spent 65 million 😂

[KevinB]

Sounds like they didn’t follow the legal path for constitutional amendment, and a judge told them that before putting on ballot

Four things:

1. The special session at which the Democrats proposed and passed the amendment had been been limited to budget items. This limit was agreed to by both Dems and Republicans. The Dems never would have had the votes necessary to convene the session at which they passed the amendment if the amendment had been included in the proposed agenda. In passing the amendment, they violated their own rules to which they had agreed.

2. The Virginia constitution requires an intervening election after the legislature passes the amendment. This is a safeguard. It provides voters with the opportunity to have a say in which legislators will be voting on the constitutional amendment. In this case, the amendment was passed on October 25, 2025, mere days before the November "election". However, at that point, early voting had been going on for over forty days and millions of people had voted not knowing that this constitutional amendment was at stake. These early voters were essentially disenfranchised as to this issue.

3. A Virginia statute provides that any proposed constitutional amendment must be submitted to the courthouses within the state and posted at those courthouses. This was not done.

4. The wording of the referendum, "Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness (emphasis added) in the upcoming elections ..." is misleading and prejudicial.

The circuit court judge in Tazewell County stopped the referendum prior to the vote based on 1, 2 and 3 above. The Virginia Supreme Court overruled him and allowed the vote to go forward, stating that courts should not be in the business of stopping elections. They said they would deal with it after the vote if the vote was in favor. That's where we are now. There are other cases percolating if this case fails, which it shouldn't.