Will Virginia keep its gerrymandered “lobster district”?

In the congressional redistricting trend that has spread across the United States, Virginia now stands as one of the most-watched participants. At stake in the commonwealth is a newly drawn map of mostly Democratic-leaning districts—including one dubbed the “lobster district,” with a shape that resembles two claws and a long tail stretching to Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court of Virginia is expected any day to affirm or strike down the new map, passed as the result of a referendum Virginia voters approved last month 51.7% to 48.3%. While the justices review the case, a lower court’s order has temporarily blocked certification of the election results. The high court’s anticipated ruling is the latest chapter in a monthslong drama orchestrated by Virginia Democrats who hope to flip four U.S. House seats in their party’s favor during the November midterm elections.

“The big question before the Supreme Court of Virginia is whether fast-tracking the Virginia redistricting referendum ran afoul of procedural rules and the underlying reasons those requirements exist,” explained Jason Fierman, a Virginia resident and managing director of the Redistrict Network.

Virginia’s redistricting battle is one of several such efforts in recent months. Traditionally, redistricting occurs once a decade, but since President Donald Trump pushed Texas to take on mid-decade congressional remapping last summer, at least eight states have followed suit, hoping to flip congressional seats to one party or another.

The Constitution of Virginia requires that congressional districts be redrawn every 10 years, but last October, the Democrat-controlled General Assembly proposed an amendment that would allow for mid-decade redistricting. By redrawing congressional lines midcycle, Democrats could gain the upper hand in Virginia’s representation in Congress by shifting their current 6-5 edge over Republicans to a 10-1 advantage.

Shortly after Virginia voters approved the new map, Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley found the referendum to be unlawful and ordered a temporary block. That sent the amendment back to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

The motion was Hurley’s third attempt at blocking the redistricting agenda. The judge’s first ruling determined that the General Assembly had illegally added a proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting to the 2024 special session, and his second blocked the redistricting plan on the basis of allegedly unconstitutional ballot language. In both previous cases, the Supreme Court of Virginia authorized the referendum to proceed through the legislative process while justices reviewed the appeal.

Hurley’s final ruling held that lawmakers violated the state constitution by forcing the referendum through. He pointed to early voting that occurred during the constitutional amendment process last year. The Virginia Constitution says that in order for an amendment to be upheld, the General Assembly must vote on it before an election and again once the newly elected General Assembly takes office. But by the time the amendment passed the legislature on Oct. 31, the Nov. 4 general election had already begun because millions of Virginians had cast early votes, Hurley ruled.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones appealed Hurley’s ruling to the Supreme Court of Virginia, warning that the decision could jeopardize the upcoming Aug. 4 primary election and invalidate the votes of 3 million Virginians who cast ballots in the April 21 special election.

State Sen. Ryan McDougle, one of several Republican lawmakers who sued over the amendment, said the case depends on whether state clerks properly advertised the special election and whether lawmakers first passed it before or during the 2025 general election. It also asks whether lawmakers could legally change the focus of a February 2024 special session to consider the amendment, he told a Virginia ABC affiliate.

At the state Supreme Court last week, attorney Matthew Seligman defended the referendum’s timing and ballot language in oral arguments that hinged on the definition of the word election. Citing five separate constitutional provisions, Seligman claimed “election” defines a single day that takes place in November. Any change made before the official day of election is constitutional, regardless of early ballots cast, he said.

“I understand the concern that someone who cast their ballot before something happened might be upset or regret it,” Seligman argued. “That is a problem that someone accepts by taking advantage of the option of voting early.”

But the justices parried Seligman’s definition, pointing to Article XII, Section 1, of Virginia’s constitution, which uses “election” as a noun, versus Seligman’s example in Article II, Section 6, which uses its verb form, “be elected.”

Certification for the redistricting remains in limbo until the justices make their ruling, but with Virginia’s filing deadline for congressional candidates coming up this month, some candidates are already running in the anticipated districts.

Among them is former first lady of Virginia Dorothy McAuliffe, a Democrat campaigning in the reconfigured 7th Congressional District—aka the “lobster district”—that would span from Arlington to Augusta County and parts of Prince William and Powhatan. State Delegates Dan Helmer and Elizabeth Guzman and former federal prosecutor J.P. Cooney are her Democratic competitors.

It’s also a crowded race for Republicans in the lobster district. The candidates include state Sen. Tara Anne Durant, retired Marine Sgt. John Gray, and retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Doug Ollivant, to name a few. But while the lobster looks red on a color-coded map due to all the rural territory it covers, the tail in Northern Virginia turns the map politically blue, containing 59% of the district’s voting population.

With a decision from the Supreme Court of Virginia imminent, opinions vary on how the court will decide.

“Several Justices on the Virginia Supreme Court were quiet during oral argument, so it is hard to say which way the court is going to rule,” Fierman said.

“It’s still my belief that #SCOVA will rule against the referendum, leaving Va. with its current 6-5 map through 2026 (at least),” former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli posted on X.

Even if Cuccinelli is wrong, a pending lawsuit by the Republican National Committee could still get in the way of the new map. The RNC’s lawsuit focuses on the compactness of the district maps, which Republicans say Democrats unfairly drew in a way that they knew would maximize their numbers.

Entrepreneur Philip Harding, another Republican running in the 7th District, criticized the redrawn district in a statement. “A lobster-shaped district seems more about serving the politicians rather than the people,” he said. “Virginians should have confidence that their voices matter and that the rules are being followed not bent behind closed doors. We have faith the Virginia Supreme Court will do what is right, but even if they do not, we are determined to press on.”