The Virginia Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a motion from Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones to certify the results of last week's statewide referendum on congressional redistricting, allowing a lower court's injunction to remain in place as the full case proceeds.

Voters narrowly approved the constitutional amendment on April 21, with 51.68 percent (1,603,345 votes) favoring a "yes" and 48.32 percent (1,499,382 votes) voting "no," according to unofficial results. Turnout reached 48.58 percent of registered voters. The measure would have temporarily empowered the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to redraw the state's 11 congressional districts, implementing a map projected to give Democrats an advantage in 10 districts compared to the current 6-5 split.

The ballot question asked: "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?" It responded to redistricting efforts in Republican-led states by permitting changes until October 31, 2030, after which the bipartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission would resume control.

Republicans challenged the referendum's placement on the ballot, alleging violations of constitutional requirements, including a 90-day public notice period, improper use of a special legislative session, and misleading ballot language. Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled on April 22 that the process was unconstitutional and "flagrantly misleading," enjoining certification by state and local officials.

Democrats appealed, arguing that overturning the results post-election would undermine voter will. Virginia Solicitor General Tillman J. Breckenridge told the court during oral arguments on April 27: "It would be patently unfair to override the people’s vote because of a concern that they had not gotten the opportunity to voice their opinion months earlier." Justices pressed Democrats on procedural timing, including whether amendments passed after early voting began complied with rules requiring action before the next general election.

The Supreme Court's denial of the stay was procedural and did not address the merits, but it keeps certification--originally due Friday--on hold. Jason Snead of the Honest Elections Project Action, representing challengers, called the oral arguments "promising," suggesting the court might uphold the lower ruling to prevent "highly gerrymandered, partisan maps."

A final decision on the amendment's validity could come soon, potentially affecting the 2026 midterm elections and Virginia's congressional delegation. Democrats aimed to offset Republican gains elsewhere, while Republicans sought to preserve existing maps drawn after the 2020 census.