The fate of Virginia’s political map hung in the balance yesterday as the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a recent amendment election. The core of the dispute? Whether the process followed to redraw congressional districts – a move potentially giving Democrats a commanding majority – adhered to the state’s constitution.
The justices initially lifted a temporary restraining order issued by a lower court, but a crucial question loomed: could they even rule on the amendment’s validity unless the election itself succeeded? The court determined they could only assess the merits if voters approved the change, effectively tying their hands until after the ballots were counted.
Virginia’s constitutional amendment process is deliberate, requiring proposal and agreement by the General Assembly, followed by a second affirmation in a subsequent session. Legal scholars have argued the process was flawed, citing numerous procedural missteps. The court’s decision could invalidate the entire election, a possibility that resonated throughout the arguments.
A central point of contention revolved around the very definition of “election.” One Justice questioned whether the term “next general election” meant the election already underway, or the one following it. The appellants’ counsel argued that the Constitution consistently defines an “election” as a single day in November, not a multi-month period beginning in September.
The Justice pressed further, asking if the counsel’s position meant every vote cast *before* the official election day was cast *before* the election even began. The counsel affirmed this, citing consistency with federal interpretations and those of other states. The court explored whether interpreting the law in this manner would invalidate votes already cast.
The discussion then turned to the intent of the framers of the 1971 Virginia Constitution. A Justice pointed out that the intervening election requirement was designed to allow voters to assess their delegates’ positions on a proposed amendment *before* casting their ballots. This context, however, was deemed less important than the plain text of the Constitution itself.
Perhaps most startling was the argument that early voting inherently carries a risk – the risk that voters might not know about a proposal that emerges *after* they’ve already cast their ballots. This justification, presented to defend the amendment’s timing, raised serious questions about fairness and transparency.
A Democrat voter, Camilla Simon, submitted a sworn affidavit detailing her regret after voting early, only to discover a proposed amendment she opposed. She wished she could change her vote for the delegate who championed the amendment. The court noted this fact was unchallenged by the opposing side, highlighting the potential for disenfranchisement.
The method by which the amendment was brought before the General Assembly also came under scrutiny. A special session was called to address budget bills, but the amendment was introduced and passed during that session. Counsel argued that a special session explicitly for a constitutional amendment would have required a two-thirds vote, a threshold Democrats didn’t meet.
The exchange revealed a potentially alarming assertion: that the General Assembly, once in session, can essentially disregard the stated purpose of that session and conduct any business it chooses with a simple majority vote. A Justice questioned whether the legislature could effectively ignore any limitations set forth in the resolution calling for the special session.
Counsel confirmed this, stating the General Assembly is “the master of its own operations” and can change the rules by majority vote at any time. This assertion sparked concern, suggesting a broad and potentially unchecked power within the legislative branch. The implications for future legislative actions are significant.
Notably absent from the arguments was any discussion of the language used to present the amendment to voters – specifically, the phrase “restore fairness.” This omission, given the highly charged political context, was a striking oversight. The Virginia Supreme Court has since denied a request to pause the order blocking the referendum.
