After Virginia’s Supreme Court struck down a Democratic-backed redistricting referendum for violating the state’s constitutional amendment process, some Democrats reportedly discussed lowering the judicial retirement age to replace the justices and revive the map. Here’s why that threatens the rule of law and the constitutional order.
The great gerrymandering race of 2026 is still well underway with California, Utah, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida all gearing up with new maps this year. Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi could also have new congressional maps by November after the Supreme Court’s ruling against racial gerrymandering.
But national news was made last week when the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a 4-3 ruling striking down Democrats’ 10-1 congressional redistricting referendum that passed on April 21. The majority opinion was written by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, whose term expires in January 2027 – a fact that made the ruling politically consequential, given that Virginia’s General Assembly elects state Supreme Court justices.
The ruling said what many independent legal experts had been claiming this entire time: The Democrats rushed the constitutional process and set up a voting referendum with improper procedures. Not only that, the language of the referendum was purposefully misleading. And after spending more than $70 million to campaign on this new map in Virginia, the Supreme Court of Virginia has already struck it down.
Since the ruling, Virginia Democrats have filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to halt the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision and revive the redistricting measure before the 2026 midterms.
So how should we think about this? Three points.
First, Virginia Democrats did not follow proper constitutional procedures to make this happen.
They may get another shot before 2028. Lest we forget, in 2020, Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved, by more than 65 percent of the vote, a bipartisan redistricting commission to take raw politics out of drawing congressional and legislative maps. This was for the purpose of fairness, and it resulted in six Democratic districts and five Republican districts. This actually fairly represents Virginia’s political climate.
But after taking control of executive branch sweeping the gubernatorial, lieutenant governor, and attorney general races in the 2025 elections, Democrats set about dismantling what was already deemed fair. Their goal was a new 10-1 congressional map, in order to temporarily restore “fairness” to the national elections. Their words. But that couldn’t be done without amending the constitution.
Virginia’s process is explicit: The General Assembly must pass the amendment before one election of the House of Delegates, then again after that intervening election, before it ever goes to voters. This exists to ensure the voting public can weigh in on their legislators before a permanent constitutional change is locked in. That’s how the Virginia constitution works.
But what did the Democrats do instead? They did not take up the redistricting amendment until October 31, 2025 – one week before Election Day in the 2025 gubernatorial election — after early voting had already been underway for weeks. By then, more than 1.3 million Virginians had already voted. In court, the Commonwealth argued that the “general election” for purposes of Virginia’s constitutional amendment process meant Election Day itself, not the early-voting period that preceded it.
The Virginia Supreme Court, an independent judiciary made up of Republicans and Democrats, saw through this scheme.
The majority ruled that early voting is legally part of the election — not a warmup act before it — and that the General Assembly’s maneuver rendered the referendum null and void. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, the current congressional maps remain in place for the 2026 midterms. Justice prevailed, but barely.
Second, reports quickly emerged that some Democrats had discussed drastic ways to sideline the Virginia Supreme Court and replace the current majority with judges more favorable to their redistricting agenda.
Make no mistake — the 4-3 ruling was decisive and nonpartisan. The majority opinion was written by a Democrat saying that Democrats were out of order.
Within days of the decision, reports surfaced about a drastic idea: lowering the mandatory retirement age for Virginia Supreme Court justices from age 73 to age 54.
Why 54? Because, according to the proposal being circulated, that threshold would reach the youngest justice who joined the majority opinion.
If enacted, such a maneuver could force every justice in the majority off the bench, allowing the Democratic-controlled General Assembly to install replacements and potentially relitigate the redistricting case before a newly composed court.
Such a move would damage public trust in the judiciary and effectively neuter the Constitution – all for a referendum that passed by only about three percentage points. Justice Arthur Kelsey authored the majority opinion even though his term expires in January 2027, meaning the General Assembly will soon decide whether he receives another term. That makes his opinion all the more notable: he followed the Constitution even under obvious political pressure.
That is exactly the kind of courage that makes the rule of law and due process possible. You cannot change the rules just because the outcome doesn’t go your way.
Finally, Christians need to be soberminded when it comes to the fragile and impermanent nature of our institutions — even our Constitution.
What happened in Virginia threatens the entire constitutional order for the sake of short-term political power. There are political actors who would rather resort to an end that justifies the means by exchanging real justice for raw political power.
Christians must be clear-eyed about ordered liberty. Proverbs 11:1 says, “A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight.”
You cannot put your thumb on the scale and call it the will of the people, nor can you call it justice. You don’t circumvent a bipartisan process you don’t like, exploit a constitutional loophole, and then retaliate against the court that stops you — and then call any of that justice.
While Virginia Democrats may be the ruling party in Richmond, they have a lot of soul searching to do. While the Supreme Court did the right thing to uphold the Virginia Constitution, the outcome in the future might not be as favorable to fairness.
That is why Christians must do all they can to stay engaged politically and hold elected leaders accountable, even when they did not vote for them.
When politicians try to bend the courts to preserve power, the rule of law needs defenders. Your tax-deductible gift helps the Standing for Freedom Center equip Christians to protect constitutional order, expose political overreach, and stand for truth when America’s institutions are under pressure.
