The vote in Virginia on Tuesday was just the beginning of the gerrymandering battle. Now the fight moves into the courts.

And on Wednesday evening, Judge Jack Hurley threw the brakes on the entire thing.

The order from Judge Jack Hurley of Tazewell County Circuit Court declares all votes for and against Tuesday’s referendum “ineffective,” and bars state officials from certifying the results or taking any actions to put the new maps passed by state lawmakers into effect.

In a brief order, Hurley found that the referendum violated several clauses of the state constitution, arguing it skirted a 90-day public notice requirement and calling the question that was presented to voters “flagrantly misleading.”

For reference, here is the question that was on the ballot. You tell me what the hell this means.

This is insane…

The Virginia redistricting amendment on the ballot today is framed as a vote to "restore fairness in the upcoming elections."

In reality, it turns a state that Kamala barely won by 5 pts from 6D-5R to 10D-1R. pic.twitter.com/bSxeCP3NL6

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) April 21, 2026

What it means is “let us redraw the maps to cover 2026 and 2028, and then we’ll do something else after the next census, pinky-promise.” The idea of gerrymandering to “restore fairness” is certainly up for interpretation. And the vote was a narrow win for the “yes” campaign that was backed by Democrats.

So, why is this judge getting involved now? Well, there are multiple legal challenges to the referendum, but the Virginia Supreme Court declined twice to take up the case before there was a vote. However, the court acknowledged that they were only ruling on allowing the vote to go forward, not the actual legality of the referendum.

The court ruled that a statewide referendum can be held on April 21 on whether to authorize mid-decade redistricting, upending a temporary restraining order put in place by a Tazewell County judge last month. It comes after the top court made a similar ruling last month in a related case.

The court still has not ruled on whether the mid-decade redistricting amendment and referendum are legal, indicating that the scheduled April vote could be all for nothing if the top court upholds a lower court ruling blocking the effort.

“It is the process, not the outcome, of this effort that we may ultimately have to address,” the ruling said. “Issuing an injunction to keep Virginians from the polls is not the proper way to make this decision.”

Well, now that the voters have had their say, the courts will have to decide if the entire thing was legal to begin with. Naturally, the bloodthirsty attorney general of Virginia, Jay Jones, is upset with “activist judges” who might block his preferred redistricting maps.

Attorney General Jay Jones Shares Statement on Republican National Committee v. Koski Tazewell County Circuit Court Injunction pic.twitter.com/jKpyZJ1ACr

— Attorney General Jay Jones (@AGJayJones) April 22, 2026

Funny enough, Democrats never seem to have a problem with “activist judges” overturning the will of the voters when they disagree with the will of the voters.

Now, will the Virginia Supreme Court actually rule that this referendum was unconstitutional? It depends on who you ask.

Probably. But I keep saying this Court is *weird*, is a stickler for procedural stuff, and has just kicked this can down the road. It's not the slam dunk people think.

— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) April 22, 2026

And it also depends on how the court feels on getting stuck with ruling on something so nakedly political.

Political and legal experts in Virginia agree the state Supreme Court is not overtly ideological, with many describing it as “small-c conservative,” leaning heavily on tradition and precedent rather than handing down ideologically right-wing rulings. And many observers say the court is wary of wading too heavily into political fights. But this time, it’s unavoidable.

“It’s kind of a state Supreme Court tradition to stay away from political matters whenever they can. They like to leave the legislating to the legislature. So this is going to be a really interesting test of that tradition,” said Carolyn Fiddler of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, who attended William & Mary Law School in Virginia and worked in state politics.

Virginia is one of only two states where the legislature elects Supreme Court justices. Because the state has had divided control for much of the past quarter century, the balance of the court’s justices were appointed by bipartisan compromise. The court’s current seven members include one justice who was elected when Democrats had sole control of the General Assembly, three when Republicans controlled both chambers and three when control of the legislature was split.

The consequences for Democrats, if the Virginia Supreme Court rules against them, would be disastrous. Governor Abigail Spanberger absolutely burned her own credibility by pushing this referendum after being against gerrymandering, and saying that she had “no plans” to pursue a gerrymandering effort in Virginia. Spanberger pretended that she was a moderate during the election, but has governed as a leftist – as anyone watching knew she would. Virginia’s weird election rules mean that no governor can run for a consecutive term, but if this effort blows up in Democrats’ faces, the party is looking at immediately being flipped right out of the governor’s mansion once again. And, as Professor Jonathan Turley points out, if the referendum is tossed, the Democrats will have “alienated” nearly half of the voters in the state who will have VERY long memories.

It’s little wonder that Virginia – and national – Democrats have a vested interest in getting this referendum approved by the courts. Not only would they be highly embarrassed if this gets thrown out, it would be embarrassment with electoral consequences. They’re going to pull out all the stops for this one – so the GOP had better be prepared to do the same.

Featured image via succo on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license