Last week, the US Supreme Court declined to rule on the redistricting case filed by the Virginia House of Delegates. Following the last US Census, several districts were revised by the General Assembly, which has spurred an ongoing battle over Virginia’s voting districts. At the time, the gerrymander was considered a political compromise, but has proven contrary to the Virginia Constitution.

One of the most pressing issues with the new boundaries is that it specifically redistributed a large number of African American voters. Those opposed to this redistricting feared that this move diluted the voting power of the African American community. The initial argument around the redistricting was to comply with the Voting Rights Act, however, many in the space have expressed concerns that the shape of the districts is too unwieldy to achieve their stated purpose. 

Regardless of the motivation behind our existing districts, the Virginia constitution requires districts that are “compact” and “contiguous,” which they currently are not. A lower court has already invalidated these districts as unconstitutional and ordered the General Assembly to revise the boundaries based on the court’s parameters. 

This is the decision that was recently challenged by the House Republicans. The Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds stating that the House of Delegates cannot represent  Virginians in the lawsuit against other valid branches of government. Additionally, the House, in deciding to take up this case, went against both the Senate and the Virginia Attorney General, both of whom declined involvement. 

The Supreme Court has a long history of both hearing and declining to hear redistricting cases. They are notoriously difficult to rule on and experts have yet to come up with a test that can clearly identify gerrymandering. The Court did not decide the case based on the merits of the argument made by the House, but rather on a procedural standing issue, and has given no additional information regarding districting practices. However, the practical effect of the outcome is that the lower court’s decision will stand, and the districts will have to be redrawn. 

In the last General Assembly session, there was a “first read” of a constitutional amendment to establish an independent redistricting commission tasked with drawing the new lines. This was a significant first step for non-partisan redistricting. In order for the amendment to take effect, it must pass the 2020 General Assembly session, as well. 



Creating fair districts is no simple task, and government entities still have yet to figure out a way to fairly draw these lines. The first step is to ensure that those being elected aren’t able to select their voters. There is a long road ahead, but the Supreme Court’s decision ensured that the process wouldn’t be set back by political gamesmanship.