Attorneys testified before the Virginia Supreme Court today about Democrat lawmakers allegedly breaking constitutional rules to get a redistricting amendment on the ballot.
Attorney Thomas McCarthy argued on behalf of the Republican appellees that a clerk’s failure to post notice of the vote invalidates the legitimacy of voter approval.
“None of these voters had any idea this was coming and that's not how the process is supposed to work because as I mentioned before, it's the people, the people of the commonwealth, the voters who possess the power to amend or modify the Constitution and denying them the knowledge that this proposed note is coming through should undermine the whole process,” McCarthy told the the Vriginia Supreme Court justices on April 27.
Republicans allege that the vote bypassed a bipartisan redistricting commission to approve new Congressional districts set by the Virginia General Assembly.
Virginia House Republican Minority Leader Terry Kilgore said there are serious legal questions about the process used to put the referendum before voters.
“Those questions have not been resolved, and they now move where they belong: to the courts,” Kilgore said.
At the core of the dispute is Virginia Code § 30-13, a statute that requires a proposed constitutional amendment to be posted at the front door of the courthouse at least 90 days before the election, according to McCarthy.
“Virginia voters are entitled to strict compliance to that constitutional amendment process, yet a bare partisan majority of general assembly rammed the proposed amendment through the legislature departing radically from the mandated constitutional amendment process and historical practice,” he said.
The redistricting plan approved by voters last week, 51.6 to 48.3 percent, which changes the state’s Congressional balance to 10 Democrats and 1 Republican.
The state’s current delegation split is 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Matthew Seligman argued on behalf of the appellants that although Virginia Code § 30-13 has not been repealed, the constitutional basis for the publication requirement was repealed in 1971.
“That means that Section 30-13 can no longer be a legal precondition for the validity of the Constitutional Amendment ratification,” Seligman told the panel of judges.
The state’s highest court will decide, based on Monday’s arguments, whether Democrats can advance with the redistricting plan or whether the technicality invalidates voter approval.
“Part of the reason why the General Assembly has not repealed Section 30-13 is precisely because everyone in the Commonwealth knew about this without going to look at the door of the local courthouse,” Seligman added.
Republicans pledged to continue the battle over Virginia’s new map in court.