– The Washington Times
A circuit court judge in Virginia issued an emergency temporary injunction Thursday to stop early voting on the Democrats’ redistricting ballot referendum.
Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled that the emergency injunction would remain in effect until March 18, stopping early voting scheduled to begin March 6.
The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit Wednesday objecting to the ballot referendum, citing misleading language and violations of state law and the state constitution.
Judge Hurley said the plaintiffs “have an extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits.”
The RNC was joined in the lawsuit by the National Republican Congressional Committee and two Republican lawmakers from Virginia, Reps. Morgan Griffith and Ben Cline.
Virginia Democrats currently hold six of the state’s 11 U.S. House seats. They want to redraw the map to capture as many as 10 seats in the midterm elections, boosting the party’s chances of winning majority control of the House.
It is part of a nationwide redistricting battle. President Trump urged redistricting in GOP-run states to get more Republican-leaning districts and help the party hold onto its razor-thin House majority. Texas was the first to redraw its maps. Then, Democratic states, led by California, responded in kind.
Virginia joined in the fight when Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, took office in January, giving her party complete control in Richmond.
Virginia’s Supreme Court last week gave the go-ahead to the mid-decade redistricting referendum despite an ongoing legal challenge. The court will decide later if the map is legal.
The new ruling gives opponents more time to make their case before voting on the ballot question proceeds.
“Despite nearly half of Virginians supporting President Trump, Abigail Spanberger and Democrats are working to silence voters and lock in permanent political control,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement.
In the order, the Judge Hurley cited likely violation of Virginia election law, stating, “Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on the merit of their claim that the referendum on the proposed amendment violates the timing requirement of Article XII, Section 1 because early voting is set for ‘sooner than 90 days after’ the January passage of House Joint Resolution 4.”
He also said the ballot language violates parts of Virginia’s Constitution because it is misleading, in particular, language that the measure would ‘restore fairness’ leads voters to believe that voting against the question is imposing something that is “unfair.”
The judge denied the defendants’ motions to transfer venue and to stay the ruling pending the state Supreme Court’s consideration of an appeal from a previous lawsuit brought by Virginia Republicans.
He also denied a defense motion to stay the temporary restraining order pending appeal.
The referendum question asks voters to answer yes or no to the following question:
“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”
• Kerry Picket can be reached at kpicket@washingtontimes.com.
