A Virginia judge blocks a Democratic referendum, dealing a blow to redistricting efforts for 4 seats in the US House of Representatives

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A Virginia court on Thursday effectively blocked a voters’ referendum scheduled by Democrats in April to redraw the state’s congressional maps, another potentially devastating blow to the party’s efforts to pick up four more U.S. House seats in a national redistricting battle.

Read more: A Virginia judge temporarily blocks Democrats from working on a congressional redistricting effort

Virginia’s Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones has already vowed to appeal the ruling by Tazewell Circuit Court, which granted a temporary restraining order requested by the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Prosecutors say the timing and wording of the referendum are illegal.

Although Thursday’s court ruling is temporary, it could kill this year’s referendum if it is allowed for appeal. The restraining order is in effect until March 18 and early voting is scheduled to begin March 6.

The Republican request for a restraining order — also signed by Republican U.S. Reps. Ben Kline and Morgan Griffith — argues that Democrats have been pushing redistricting bills through the Legislature despite legal hurdles preventing such a rushed process.

The Republican National Committee said in a statement that the latest ruling was “a major victory in defense of faithful representation for every Virginian.”

He watches: How retirements and redistricting could affect the 2026 midterm elections

This is the second time Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. has ruled against Democrats’ redistricting agenda. In January, he ruled that a resolution amending the constitution had been illegally passed in a special legislative session and taken up before the election.

That case was appealed to the state Supreme Court, and the justices said they would allow the referendum to continue while they review the appeal.

President Donald Trump launched an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle last year by pushing Texas Republican officials to redraw districts to help his party win more seats. The goal was for the Republican Party to maintain a narrow majority in the House of Representatives in the face of political headwinds that would normally favor the party out of power in midterm elections.

Instead, it created a redistricting battle at the national level. So far, Republicans believe they can win nine more House seats in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats believe they can win six additional seats in California and Utah, and they hope to fully or partially offset the margin of the remaining three seats in Virginia.

Read more: The Texas Supreme Court allows the redrawn congressional map to be used to favor the GOP in 2026

Before Thursday’s ruling, Democrats were optimistic about moving forward with their efforts, releasing a proposed map that could give their party four additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The redistricting plan has since been submitted to the Legislature.

Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, a Democrat, said Thursday he was confident the latest court order would be overturned.

“The Virginia Supreme Court has already made clear that this issue will go to the voters, but Republicans unhappy with this ruling have returned to their friendly judge,” Scott said in a statement that referred to Hurley’s earlier decision.

Democrats also tried to limit the locations of courts that could hear such cases. After Republicans filed their first suit in Tazewell, a conservative district in southwest Virginia, Democratic lawmakers passed legislation mandating that legal actions related to constitutional amendments or their elections have only one proper place of court: the circuit court for the city of Richmond.

Democratic Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the bill into law and scheduled the redistricting referendum for April 21.

Republicans said in their court filings that Tazewell remains the rightful place despite the new law. Hurley agreed.