by Scott Dreyer
The Tazewell County Circuit court Judge Jack Hurley issued a temporary injunction on Wednesday against the yes/no Gerrymandering Election which concluded on April 21. This prevents the state from certifying these results.
Attorney General Jay Jones, who became famous in October 2025 after his text messages surfaced showing fantasies about the murder of Republican legislators and their two sons announced that they would appeal Judge Hurley’s ruling. Jones wrote on Twitter/X: “Virginia’s voters have spoken and an activist should not be able to veto the People’s Vote.”
In his injunction Judge Hurley cited numerous laws and the State Constitution that had been broken to rush the ballot to voters and put the language on it.
Judge Hurley’s case was RNC V. Steven Koski.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) as plaintiff went to court because a Yes vote would result in a redrawing of Virginia’s 5 GOP districts.
Steven Koski is the Commissioner of Elections for the State. The Spanberger administration, led by Democrat Spanberger, has promoted new maps and the election. State Senate Leader Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, boasted and promised to create “10 [expletive]1” maps.
In an interview with WSLS, Congressman Morgan Griffith condemned the illegality and inefficiency of the voting process and election: “The laws of Virginia weren’t followed and the courts will have to decide if the vote from yesterday is invalid.” Griffith is known for his folk humor and added that “the opera won’t be over until the fat woman sings.”
If the vote on April 21 is found to be valid, Griffith will likely represent an enormous, grossly gerrymandered district that runs from Cumberland Gap, near the Kentucky/Tennessee border, to Martinsville along the North Carolina border, to Vinton, the New London suburbs in Lynchburg and up to Highland County, by West Virginia. This area hosts the Maple Syrup Festival.
The case is likely to end up at the Virginia Supreme Court. Hurley ruled that the election was unconstitutional, and the Spanberger Administration will appeal. Judge Hurley ruled earlier this year that the timing and language of the election were illegal. However, S COVA allowed it to go forward and scheduled oral arguments for afterApril 21,
On April 22, Del. Wren Williams, an attorney from Stuart, summarized the ruling of Judge Hurley on , his Facebook page . The entire ruling is reproduced below.
BREAKDOWN COURT ORDER ON GERRYMANDERING
RNC v. Steven Koski, et al. CL26-266
Tazewell County Circuit Court
Judge Jack Hurley’s Final Judgment
The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ motion for final judgment and the case record.
* GRANTS FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON ALL COUNTS OF THEIR VERIFIED COMPLAINT;
* Declares that HJR 6007 is void from the start because it violates House Joint Resolutions 428 and 6001, and that any action taken on this basis is a nullification of the General Assembly’s call to Governor for the Special Session in 2024;
This argument is about expanding the special session to include more than just the budget session.
* DECLARES HJR-6007 to be void from the start because it violates Va. art. Art.
This is the argument that a House of Delegates election must be held between the first and the second passing of a constitutional amendment by General Assembly.
* Declares that the General Assembly’s votes taken on the proposed Constitutional Amendment during the Regular Session in 2026 are invalid because Va. Code SS30-13 was not followed. art. XII, SS1;
This is the argument of the 90-day notification provision, whereby the notice about a special election must be posted 90 days before the election. It was the first day of early voting that marked the beginning of the election, not April 21, as some people believe.
* DECLARES HB 1384 as a violation of the Submission Clause in Va. Const. art. XII SS1: The ballot language in HB1384 is misleading to voters and does not accurately describe the amendment that was approved by the General Assembly.
The language used on the ballot is “flagrantly false” and unconstitutional.
* DECLARES HB 1384 as a violation of the Virginia Const. art. XII SS1 because the amendment was submitted to voters on March 6, 2026 for an early vote, which is earlier than the required 90 days following the passage of HJ4 in the General Assembly.
The same argument is made about the 90 day timeline but the court finds that the election rules are unconstitutional due to the fact that they begin within the 90 day window.
* DECLARES HB 1384 as a violation of the Form of Laws Clause of Va. art. The title of IV, SS12 is not accurate because it encompasses more than one item and does not accurately describe the subject matter.
This is an argument to the effect that the law as passed by General Assembly is not a bill with a single issue like the one we have in VA and DC. The title of the bill does not explain the law properly.
* DECLARES HB 1384 as a violation of Va. Const. art. Art.
Block the Democrats from using mandatory satellite offices at certain locations. This takes away the power of the localities.
* Declares that all votes in favor or against of the constitutional amendment proposed in the special election on April 21, 2026 are invalid;
All ballots are thrown out as they are ineffective. All ballots are thrown out.
* Determines that all Plaintiffs are entitled to the injunctive and declaratory relief requested in the Verified Complaint.
The Democrats regularly complain that there is a lack of standing to bring a case before the Court and obtain the relief provided by the law.
* Finds that the equities are in favor of a permanent injunctive remedy, that Plaintiffs do not have any adequate remedy, and that Plaintiffs would be irreparably damaged if permanent injunctive remedies were not granted because of numerous violations in the constitutional amendment process, and because Congressmen Cline, Griffith, and others, who will be irreparably injured by the change of their district at this point,
Fairness dictates that it is more important to stop the election from taking place before irreparable damage occurs than to allow the election proceed. This prevents the certification of an election.
* After finding that Plaintiffs have a right to permanent injunctive remedy, the Court ENJOINS permanently Defendants or their successors not to certify the results of April 21, 2026 Special Election;
This permanently prevents the Democrats from certifying an election before a higher court’s ruling. This effectively stops the election on its tracks.
The Court permanently ENJOINS defendants and their successors to refrain from any action that would give effect to the proposed constitution amendment which is the subject of April 21, 2026 Special Election, including but not limited:
Take the following steps to prevent the Democrats from acting as if a special election had occurred.
* Update or modify voter registration records to reflect the new congressional districts proposed by the constitutional amendment.
* updating or modifying election districts, precincts or polling stations in accordance with the new congressional districts proposed by the constitutional amendment
* updating or creating pollbooks and ballots according to the new congressional districts proposed by the constitutional amendment;
* implementing new districts or maps in all congressional primaries or general elections under the proposed constitutional amendement;
This provision stops all congressional campaigns in invalidated and unconstitutional district.
(Procedural legal jargon incoming.)
* DENIES Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint
* OVERRULES Commonwealth Defendants’ Plea of Immunity and Demurrer against Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint
* FINDS Plaintiffs have complied to the County Defendants’ Motion Craving Oyer. DISMISSES this Motion and ORDER that the documents submitted in response to it are made a Part of the Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint.
* Denies the County Defendants’ requests for relief against Commonwealth without prejudice
* DENIES any other motions that may be outstanding;
* REJECTS ALL OTHER PLEAS;
* Suspends any bond requirements for parties petitioning or appealing this final judgment
* DENIES the Commonwealth Defendants motion to stay pending an appeal.
Stops the Dems putting off this ruling while they appeal. This means that this election cannot be held within another action taken after the Dems’ appeal by a higher Court.
This 22nd day of the month, 2026
Jack Hurley
Judge Tazewell County Circuit Court
You can view the photos of Judge Hurley’s ruling here.
Roanoke resident Scott Dreyer is the leader of a team that teaches English and ESL around the world. Reprinted with permission from .
