by Dick Hall Sizemore

A Tazewell Circuit Court judge ruled on both unconstitutional grounds and statutory grounds that the General Assembly Democrats’ attempt to amend the state Constitution to allow a redistricting Congressional district this year was invalid.

The three main issues that he cited in his decision were:

Rules of Procedure in the Legislative Assembly–The resolution that established the Special Session 2024 limited its actions to budgetary measures. It was therefore not allowed to pass a constitutional amendment. This is a bit shaky. The judicial branch is reluctant to reverse legislation because internal rules were not followed by the legislature. The judiciary generally gives the legislature the right to choose whatever procedure it wishes, as long as the law or constitution is not violated.

Election Day–The Virginia Constitution stipulates that an amendment must be approved in two General Assembly sessions with an interim election of the House of Delegates. The 2024 Special Session passed the redistricting amendment on October 31, 2025. This was several days before Election Day, November 4, 2025. Democrats argue that this meets the constitutional requirement for an intervening election. The judge disagreed. He said that the election began on September 19 when early voting started. He said that if the court ruled that the election would only be held on November 4, 2025 then one million early voters (who voted) would lose their right to vote. This ruling is valid. It is a question of whether, in constitutional terms, “election” means Election Day itself or the whole process including early voting. When the constitution was adopted there were provisions that allowed for absentee ballots, so they could have done it before Election Day. A.E. Dick Howard, a recognized expert in Virginia Constitutional law, says that the provision requiring an interim election has been part of the Virginia Constitution since 1870. Early voting was certainly not expected at the time.

State Law required that any proposed constitutional amendments be distributed to all localities, and posted at the front of the courthouse “not later than three month prior to the subsequent general election of House of Delegates members.” This didn’t happen. Democrats claim that this requirement is outdated. They claim that the requirement was removed from the most recent version of the State Constitution and the repealing of this statute had just been overlooked. They do have a point. Virginia Code was littered by requirements to post announcements on courthouse doors. The Virginia Code used to be littered with requirements for posting notices on the courthouse door. The vast majority of Virginians probably couldn’t tell you the location of the courthouse today. The posting requirement remains law. If anyone is required to follow the provisions of law, then it’s the General Assembly.

Democrats have tried to preempt the ruling of the court. They have included in the legislation, which would authorize and fund the redistricting vote, a provision that repeals the posting requirement retroactively to 1971 when the constitution was adopted. A provision that will take effect on September 1, 2025 requires that any lawsuits relating to a constitutional change and the process for approving one must be filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. “Any pending suit that is affected by this legislation should be immediately transferred”

These two provisions are absurd. The principles of the rule-of-law are violated when legislation is passed retroactively to repeal legislation or change the venue of specific actions that have adversely affected the applicant.

The Tazewell Judge addressed this legislation in his opinion and declared it “null, void”. It has a clause that makes it effective after the governor signs the bill. The judge ruled that the bill, consequently, was emergency legislation and had not obtained the constitutionally required four-fifths vote.

Democrats claim that this legislation is exempted from the requirement of four-fifths because it is an amendment to the Appropriation Act. State constitution exempts “general appropriation acts” from the effective date requirements. According to, “a general appropriation acts shall take effect upon its passage unless a different effective date is specified by the act.” 1-214. The Democrats treat this bill as if they were “mini-caboose bills.”

The bill also increases the salary of Director of Legislative Services. It designates existing funding for several agencies and commissions. And it appropriates funds to Department of Elections to conduct the referendum. The bill then outlines the provisions for the constitutional amendment. It repeals the statute requiring notice of proposed amendments, changes the venue for any lawsuits dealing with amending constitutions, and makes minor technical changes to the numbering of sections in the current Appropriation act. It is misleading to call this an “appropriation act”.

At least one report suggests that the Tazewell Judge issued an injunction preventing any further action on the redistricting amendment by the General Assembly. The General Assembly under the Democratic majority is in violation of the Tazewell court ruling if this is true. Speaker of the House Don Scott announced the legislation would “go to the Governor’s desk on Saturday.”

The Democrats have promised to appeal this decision before the Virgina Supreme Court. It is their right. In their haste, however, to pass the redistricting bill, they have enacted a measure that has been declared constitutionally invalid by a judge, and used a bill that has been deemed “null” and void. They also have resorted provisions that are contrary to long-held principles for good government, and may even be violating a court order.

Her first test will be what Governor Spanberger decides to do with the legislation once it reaches her.