Redistricting in Virginia

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Virginia's 11 United States Representatives and 140 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Virginia was apportioned 11 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Virginia after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, Virginia was apportioned 11 congressional districts, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.

Virginia's House of Delegates is made up of 100 districts; Virginia's State Senate is made up of 40 districts.

In Virginia, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are set by a 16-member commission comprising state legislators and non-legislator citizens. The General Assembly must vote to approve the maps without amending them. If the General Assembly rejects the first set of draft maps, the commission must submit another. If the General Assembly rejects this second set of draft maps, the Virginia Supreme Court is tasked with enacting new maps.

The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously approved congressional maps for the state on December 28, 2021. The Virginia Redistricting Commission released two statewide congressional map proposals on October 14, 2021, and another on October 15, 2021. After the commission missed its deadline for approving map proposals and the Virginia Supreme Court assumed authority over the process, the two special masters selected by the court released proposals for congressional districts on December 8, 2021. The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously approved district maps for the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia State Senate on December 28, 2021. Democratic and Republican consultants submitted statewide map proposals for consideration to the Virginia Redistricting Commission on September 18, 2021. The commission had reviewed earlier maps on August 31, 2021, that were focused solely on suburbs in northern Virginia that were drawn from scratch and did not consider legislative incumbents’ home addresses in keeping with earlier commission decisions. After the commission missed its deadline for approving map proposals and the Virginia Supreme Court assumed authority over the process, the two special masters selected by the court released proposals for House and Senate districts on December 8, 2021.These maps took effect for Virginia's 2023 legislative elections. Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Virginia
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Virginia
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Virginia's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“	No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.	”
—Voting Rights Act of 1965

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Virginia was home to two congressional majority-minority districts.

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

On November 3, 2020, Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment establishing a commission-driven congressional and state legislative redistricting process. The 16-member commission comprises eight legislators and eight non-legislator members. Leaders of the legislature's two largest political parties select legislators to serve on the commission. The commission's eight citizen members are recommended by legislative leaders and selected by a committee of five retired circuit court judges. The commissioners themselves select one of the eight citizens to serve as chairperson.

District maps are subject to the following consensus requirements:

• Congressional maps: Approval by 12 commissioners, including six legislators and six non-legislators.
• Virginia State Senate: Approval by 12 commissioners, including six legislators (with three state senators) and six non-legislators.
• Virginia House of Delegates: Approval by 12 commissioners, including six legislators (with three state delegates) and six non-legislators.

The commission submits its maps to the General Assembly, which can vote to approve the maps or reject them. The General Assembly cannot amend the maps. If the General Assembly rejects a map, the commission must draft a second map. If the General Assembly rejects that map, the Virginia Supreme Court is tasked with enacting a new map.

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Virginia, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences are counted in their correctional facilities. Federal inmates are counted using the same standard as state inmates.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Virginia

Virginia comprises 11 congressional districts. The table below lists Virginia's current U.S. Representatives.

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House Virginia District 1	Robert J. Wittman	Republican	January 3, 2007	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 2	Jennifer Kiggans	Republican	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 3	Robert C. Scott	Democratic	January 3, 1993	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 4	Jennifer McClellan	Democratic	March 7, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 5	Bob Good	Republican	January 3, 2021	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 6	Benjamin Lee Cline	Republican	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 7	Abigail Spanberger	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 8	Donald Sternoff Beyer Jr.	Democratic	January 3, 2015	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 9	H. Morgan Griffith	Republican	January 3, 2011	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 10	Jennifer Wexton	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Virginia District 11	Gerald Edward Connolly	Democratic	January 3, 2009	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: Virginia State Senate and Virginia House of Delegates

Virginia comprises 40 state Senate districts and 100 state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in Virginia after the 2020 census

Virginia was apportioned 11 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously approved congressional maps for the state on December 28, 2021. The Virginia Redistricting Commission released two statewide congressional map proposals on October 14, 2021, and another on October 15, 2021. After the commission missed its deadline for approving map proposals and the Virginia Supreme Court assumed authority over the process, the two special masters selected by the court released proposals for congressional districts on December 8, 2021.

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Virginia Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Virginia Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Liz White, the director of redistricting reform organization One Virginia 2021, said, "They're definitely the best maps we’ve seen in Virginia in a long time. It’s the first set of maps that haven’t been drawn at all by any member of the legislature, by any member of any political party."

Ben Cline (R) said "I look forward to the opportunity of introducing myself to the new voters added to VA-6 including the Counties of Frederick, Clarke, and Alleghany, and the Cities of Winchester, Covington, and Salem. However, I am disappointed I will no longer have the privilege of representing so many friends and neighbors in Amherst and Bedford Counties and the City of Lynchburg."

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Virginia
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Virginia's 1st	46.2%	52.3%	47.0%	51.4%
Virginia's 2nd	50.1%	48.2%	51.4%	46.7%
Virginia's 3rd	68.3%	30.0%	67.2%	31.2%
Virginia's 4th	67.2%	31.5%	61.8%	36.8%
Virginia's 5th	45.2%	53.4%	45.1%	53.6%
Virginia's 6th	38.4%	60.0%	38.6%	59.8%
Virginia's 7th	52.6%	45.8%	49.8%	48.7%
Virginia's 8th	77.4%	21.3%	77.6%	21.1%
Virginia's 9th	28.5%	70.3%	28.4%	70.4%
Virginia's 10th	58.3%	40.2%	58.9%	39.6%
Virginia's 11th	70.0%	28.7%	70.3%	28.3%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously approved district maps for the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia State Senate on December 28, 2021. Democratic and Republican consultants submitted statewide map proposals for consideration to the Virginia Redistricting Commission on September 18, 2021. The commission had reviewed earlier maps on August 31, 2021, that were focused solely on suburbs in northern Virginia that were drawn from scratch and did not consider legislative incumbents’ home addresses in keeping with earlier commission decisions. After the commission missed its deadline for approving map proposals and the Virginia Supreme Court assumed authority over the process, the two special masters selected by the court released proposals for House and Senate districts on December 8, 2021.These maps took effect for Virginia's 2023 legislative elections.

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Virginia State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Virginia State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Virginia State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Virginia State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Del. Sally Hudson (D) said “The special masters drew sensible districts that respect the Charlottesville-Albemarle region as the community we are. After a decade of fractured lines that left us with six different representatives in Richmond, our City and County will now have two Delegates, one Senator, and a coherent, empowered voice in state politics.”

State Sen. Scott Surovell (D) said "The law says that 'A map of districts shall not, when considered on a statewide basis, unduly favor or disfavor any political party' - D's have won every statewide election since 2009 except the last which didn't by 40-80K votes of 3.2M cast. This does not merit for toss up maps." In a public hearing prior to the court's approval of the map, Gary Hodnett, the mayor of Hurt, Virginia, said the proposed maps would separate voters in the Hurt area from their communities of interest. “We are obviously more aligned with our surrounding communities like Motley, Grit and Renan. We work closely with our neighboring towns of Gretna and Chatham,” said Hodnett.

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Virginia after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Virginia neither gained nor lost congressional seats. On January 20, 2012, the legislature approved a new congressional district plan, which was signed into law by the governor on January 25, 2012.

Legal challenges and other developments

United States Supreme Court

On October 6, 2013, opponents challenged the state's congressional district map in federal court, alleging "racial gerrymander without adequate justification under the Voting Rights Act." On October 7, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the state's congressional map. The court found that "the legislature's use of broad demographic target percentages, without accounting for the political reality on the ground, left its plan insufficiently tailored to [Voting Rights Act] compliance." The maps remained in effect during the 2014 election, but the court ordered the legislature to draw new districts for future elections. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, on March 30, 2015, remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the high court's March 25, 2015, decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama.

On June 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia again ruled that an unconstitutional racial gerrymander had occurred in Virginia. The court ordered that District 3 be redrawn in light of this ruling. Judges Allyson Duncan and Liam O'Grady wrote the court's opinion.

“	Because plaintiffs have shown that race predominated in Virginia’s 2012 plan and because defendants have failed to establish that this race-based redistricting satisfies strict scrutiny, we find that the 2012 plan is unconstitutional and will require the commonwealth to draw a new congressional district plan.	”
—Judges Allyson Duncan and Liam O'Grady

Judge Robert Payne dissented. He wrote the following in his dissent: "As I understand the record, the redistricting decision here was driven by a desire to protect incumbents and by the application of traditional redistricting precepts even though race was considered because the legislature had to be certain that the plan complied with federal law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

The court ordered the state to draft a new congressional district map by September 1, 2015. The court's full opinion can be accessed here.

On August 5, 2015, a panel of federal judges denied requests by state Republicans to extend the deadline. On August 17, 2015, a special session of the state legislature was convened. Within hours, the Virginia State Senate adjourned the session. Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates William Howell (R) said, "The House of Delegates remains in session. ... Unfortunately, without the presence of the Senate, there is no possible path forward on redistricting." After the session's adjournment, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) said, "The opportunity for a legislative remedy has ended."

Because the state legislature was unable to adopt a new congressional district map, the task fell to a panel of federal judges. On January 7, 2016, this panel unveiled Virginia's new congressional district map and ordered that it be used for the 2016 elections. The Richmond Times-Dispatch described this map as follows:

“	[The map] centers [District 3] in Hampton Roads. The new map adds Richmond and Petersburg to the 4th District, represented by Republican J. Randy Forbes, improving Democrats’ chances of winning the district in November. The new map makes lesser changes to the districts of three other Republicans, Reps. Dave Brat, R-District 7, Robert J. Wittman, R-District 1, and Scott Rigell, R-District 2.	”
—Richmond Times-Dispatch

In January 2016, a group of Republican lawmakers, including Representatives Rob Wittman, Bob Goodlatte, J. Randy Forbes, Morgan Griffith, Scott Rigell, Robert Hurt, David Brat, and Barbara Comstock, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States, asking that the court halt the use of this newly drawn map. The lawmakers argued that implementation of this map would result in "electoral chaos" and "mass voter confusion." Lyle Denniston, writing for SCOTUSblog, summarized their argument as follows:

“	Lawyers representing Republican members of Congress from Virginia had warned that, without a delay, candidates would have to run “two-front” campaigns in five districts, running in both the districts as composed by the legislature and the new districts drawn up by the lower court. Depending on when the Court rules on the earlier map, both this year’s primary and general elections for House of Representatives seats in the state might have to be postponed, the lawyers contended. The primary is now set for June 14 and the general for November 8, the lawyers contended.	”
—Lyle Denniston

The Virginia State Board of Elections, along with opponents of the original map drawn by the state legislature, "urged the court to deny the postponement." Denniston summarized their argument as follows:

“	They argued that the primary election should now be allowed to go forward on June 14 under the newly drawn plan of the lower court. If that plan were not used this year, they contended, it could mean that the 2012 plan could not be replaced by a valid plan until the 2018 elections. The opponents also argued that the challengers had little chance of getting the 2012 plan upheld by the Justices.	”
—Lyle Denniston

On February 1, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Republicans' request for a stay, meaning that the newly drawn map would be used for Virginia's June 2016 primary election and November 2016 general election. The court heard oral arguments about the map on March 21, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the court announced its decision in the case, Wittman v. Personhuballah. The court ruled unanimously against the challengers, finding that they lacked standing to appeal. As a result, the newly drawn map stood. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer penned the opinion. According to election law scholar Rick Hasen, "By deciding the case on standing grounds, the court was able to avoid saying anything new about the racial gerrymandering cause of action."

State legislative redistricting, 2010

See also: Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections

The governor signed into law a state legislative redistricting plan on August 29, 2011. In 2014 and 2015, the legislature made attempts to modify the districts approved in 2011. The governor vetoed each of these bills.

On December 22, 2014, opponents of the newly drawn map filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that 12 state legislative districts constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. According to the Oyez Project at the ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law, the district court rejected this argument:

“	The district court held that the plaintiffs did not establish that race was the predominant factor in the creation of 11 of the 12 challenged district. The district court also held that, although race was the predominant factor in the creation of one district, in doing so the General Assembly was pursuing a compelling state interest and its use of race was narrowly tailored to serve that interest.	”
—Oyez, ITT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case (Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections) on June 6, 2016.

On March 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, finding that the district court "employed an incorrect legal standard in determining that race did not predominate in 11 of the 12 districts." For these 11 districts, the high court remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration. The court ruled 7-1 on the case. Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Associate Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment, filing a separate opinion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and dissented in part. Kennedy wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:

“	The challengers first argue that the District Court misunderstood the relevant precedents when it required the challengers to establish, as a prerequisite to showing racial predominance, an actual conflict between the enacted plan and traditional redistricting principles. The Court agrees with the challengers on this point. ... The challengers submit that the District Court erred further when it considered the legislature's racial motive only to the extent that the challengers identified deviations from traditional redistricting criteria that were attributable to race and not to some other factor. In the challengers' view, this approach foreclosed a holistic analysis of each district and led the District Court to give insufficient weight to the 55 percent [black voting age population] target and other relevant evidence that race predominated. Again, this Court agrees."	”
—Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling in the case of the remaining challenged district (District 75), arguing that the lower court's ruling was consistent with Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, a case decided by the high court in 2015. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama established that "where a challenger succeeds in establishing racial predominance, the burden shifts to the State to 'demonstrate that its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.'"

On March 31, 2017, in a separate state-level case, Richmond Circuit Judge W. Reilly Marchant ruled that the contested districts did not violate state constitutional requirements for district compactness. On October 24, 2017, the Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of this decision. On May 31, 2018, the state supreme court upheld Marchant's decision, allowing the contested district maps to stand. The court's opinion was delivered by Justice S. Bernard Goodwin, who wrote, "The circuit court did not err in concluding that evidence was presented at trial that would 'lead reasonable and objective people to differ' regarding the compactness of the Challenged Districts, and declaring the constitutional validity of the Challenged Districts under the fairly debatable standard applied to determinations made by the legislature."

On June 26, 2018, the district court ruled 2-1 in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections that 11 state legislative districts had been subject to racial gerrymandering and needed to be redrawn. The court gave the legislature until October 30, 2018, to draw new district lines. Writing for the majority, Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said, "Overwhelming evidence in this case shows that, contrary to this constitutional mandate, the state has sorted voters into districts based on the color of their skin." On July 9, 2018, state Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the district court's order pending an appeal of that court's decision. Governor Ralph Northam (D) convened a special session of the legislature, beginning August 30, 2018, to redraw the maps. The legislature was unable to adopt a remedial map during this session. Consequently, the federal district court appointed a special master, Bernard Grofman, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, to draft a remedial map. State lawmakers petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the ruling pending ultimate resolution of the case. The high court denied this request on January 8, 2019.

On January 22, 2019, the district court issued an order directing Grofman to finalize the district plan for the House of Delegates selected by the court. Pending appeals, the remedial map was slated to apply to the 2019 election cycle. House Speaker Kirk Cox (R) criticized the plan: "The Eastern District Court selected a series of legally indefensible redistricting modules that attempts to give Democrats an advantage at every turn. The modules selected by the Court target senior Republicans, myself included, without a substantive basis in the law." Meanwhile, Democratic attorney Marc Elias, who initiated the suit, praised the order: "In Virginia, the Federal Court in the long-running state house redistricting case has ordered the special master to adopt the alternative-map configuration we advocated. We are one important step closer to the end of the GOP's racial gerrymander." At the time of the ruling, Republicans controlled the House of Delegates, holding 51 seats to Democrats' 48. Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said, "[The remedial map] would nearly guarantee a Democratic takeover of the House of Delegates."

On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, finding that the state House, helmed by Republicans, lacked standing to appeal a lower court order striking down the original legislative district plan as a racial gerrymander. The high court ruled 5-4, with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. As a result of the high court's ruling, the lower court order implementing a remedial district plan was upheld.

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Virginia state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Virginia ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Virginia.

1. Virginia Redistricting Law Clarification, Question 2 (2004)

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

Virginia was not included in this study.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Virginia. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Virginia - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Virginia after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"