RICHMOND, Va. (AP) \u2014 Virginia Supreme Court judges on Monday questioned whether the state\u2019s Democratic-led legislature complied with constitutional requirements when it sent a congressional redistricting plan to voters, in a case that carries high stakes for the balance of power in the U.S. House.<\/p>\n
A Republican challenge to the redistricting plan, which could net Democrats four additional seats and won narrow voter approval<\/a> last week, contends that the General Assembly violated procedural rules by placing the constitutional amendment before voters to authorize mid-decade redistricting. If the court agrees that lawmakers broke the rules, it could invalidate the amendment and render last week\u2019s statewide vote meaningless.<\/p>\n The Virginia court proceedings mark the latest twist in a national redistricting battle<\/a> between Republicans and Democrats seeking an advantage in a November election that will determine whether Republicans maintain their narrow majority in the U.S. House.<\/p>\n President Donald Trump kicked off a tit-for-tat round of gerrymandering last summer when he urged Texas Republicans<\/a> to redraw districts to their favor in an attempt to win several additional House seats. That set off a chain reaction of similar moves in other states, leading to the voter approval last week of Virginia\u2019s new map<\/a>.<\/p>\n Next up is Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has included congressional redistricting on the agenda for a special session<\/a> of the GOP-controlled Legislature beginning Tuesday.<\/p>\n On Monday, Virginia Supreme Court judges focused on whether the new districts should be invalidated because of the process used by lawmakers.<\/p>\n Because the state\u2019s redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the ballot.<\/p>\n The legislature\u2019s first vote occurred last October \u2014 while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. Judicial questioning focused on whether that was too late, because early voting already had begun.<\/p>\n Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the \u201celection\u201d should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature\u2019s first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he said.<\/p>\n But an attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, said \u201celection\u201d means the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that\u2019s the case, then the legislature\u2019s initial endorsement on the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution, he said. <\/p>\n So far, the two major parties have battled to a near draw in the states that have redrawn their congressional maps for this year\u2019s midterms. Republicans think they could win up to nine more seats under revised districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they could win as many as 10 additional seats under new districts in California, Utah and Virginia. But legal challenges remain in both Virginia and Missouri<\/a>.<\/p>\n Virginia currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who were elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census. The new districts, which narrowly won voter approval last Tuesday, could give Democrats an improved chance to win 10 districts.<\/p>\n