SCOTUS Denies VA Gerrymandered Maps from Taking Effect + VA Supreme Court Oral Argument

Scott v. McDougle | Virginia Gerrymandering Case | Docket Link: HereOn May 15th, the Supreme Court blocked Virginia's gerrymandered maps from taking effect. This episode breaks down the main issue and airs the Virginia Supreme Court oral arguments. Case Overview: Virginia Supreme Court struck down partisan gerrymandering amendment because 1.3 million Virginians voted early before legislature's second approval, violating constitutional requirement that valid general election separate two legislative votes.Question Presented: Whether General Assembly complied with Article XII Section 1's intervening-election requirement when approving constitutional amendment twice before referendum.Oral AdvocatesScott (Appellant): Matthew Seligman Commonwealth of Virginia (Appellant): Tillman Breckenridge, Virginia's Solicitor General McDougle (Appellee): Thomas McCarthyPosture: Circuit court invalidated referendum. Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.Main Arguments:Petitioner (Scott): (1) "Election" means Election Day only, not early voting period; (2) Legislative authority requires deference to General Assembly's constitutional interpretation; (3) Voter approval through 1.6 million ballots demonstrates democratic legitimacy.Respondent (McDougle): (1) "Election" encompasses complete voting process from early voting through Election Day; (2) Strict compliance with amendment procedures protects against legislative overreach; (3) Foster v. Love establishes elections include all voting actions.Holding: 4-3. Majority opinion by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey affirmed circuit court. Chief Justice Powell dissented, joined by Justices Mann and Fulton. Referendum invalidated despite voter approval.Majority Reasoning: (1) Article XII Section 1 requires valid intervening general election between two legislative approvals; (2) Early voting beginning September 2025 preceded January 2026 second legislative vote, preventing intervening election; (3) "Election" means combined voting actions from early voting through Election Day, citing Foster v. Love.Separate Opinions:Chief Justice Powell (dissenting, joined by Mann and Fulton): Majority improperly broadened "election" definition beyond traditional Election Day meaning. Legislature complied with constitutional text requiring election between approvals.Implications: Prevents 10-1 partisan congressional gerrymander, maintains 6-5 nonpartisan court-drawn maps. Establishes that Virginia constitutional amendment process cannot circumvent procedural requirements through narrow interpretations excluding early voting. Reinforces strict compliance standard for constitutional amendments. SCOTUS denied emergency stay May 16, 2026 without noted dissents.The Fine Print:Virginia Constitution Article XII Section 1: "Any amendment...must be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates, and again agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house."Virginia Constitution Article II Section 6-A: "Members of the Senate and of the House of Delegates of the General Assembly shall be elected from electoral districts established by the Virginia Redistricting Commission or by a court of competent jurisdiction."Primary Cases:Foster v. Love (1997): Federal law defining "election" encompasses entire voting process including early voting through Election Day, not merely Election Day itself.Coleman v. Pross (1978): Virginia constitutional amendments require strict compliance with all specified prerequisites rather than substantial compliance standard.