The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined an emergency request from Virginia Democrats seeking to restore a narrowly approved congressional redistricting map for the November 2026 midterm elections. The order was unsigned and noted no dissents from the justices, leaving in place the Virginia Supreme Court’s May 8 ruling, which invalidated the map on procedural grounds under the state constitution.
The dispute involved a congressional map proposed following voter approval of a constitutional amendment in an April referendum. Virginia currently has 11 congressional districts, favoring Democrats by a 6-5 margin. The new map sought to adjust district boundaries in ways that could have increased opportunities for Democratic candidates.
The Virginia Supreme Court determined that the process used to place the amendment on the ballot did not comply with state requirements. Specifically, under Virginia law, constitutional amendments related to redistricting must pass the General Assembly in two separate legislative sessions separated by an intervening election. The court found that the initial passage occurred in October 2025, after early voting had begun, violating timing rules. The ruling focused solely on procedural compliance and did not address the fairness or partisan impact of the proposed map.
Following the state court decision, Democratic officials filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state court’s interpretation raised federal questions regarding legislative authority over elections and the proper role of state courts. Republican legislative leaders countered that the case involved only state law and procedure, with no federal issues suitable for Supreme Court review.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 15 order effectively concluded the immediate challenge for the 2026 election cycle. Governor Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, stated that Virginia would proceed with the existing congressional districts, as deadlines for implementing new boundaries had passed.
This approach aligns with recent Supreme Court practices in mid-decade redistricting disputes, where the Court has generally deferred to state procedures unless clear federal constitutional violations are present.