Virginia Supreme Court hears challenge to recently ratified constitutional amendment

The Supreme Court of Virginia heard oral arguments today in a challenge to a constitutional amendment that voters approved last week, with attorneys disputing whether the General Assembly complied with Article 12 and related statutory requirements before sending the amendment to the electorate.

Matthew A. Seligman, counsel for the appellants, told the court that "the General Assembly and the people thus complied strictly with every step that the constitution requires," arguing the legislature followed the textual process in Article 12 (first passage in special session, second passage after the next general election, and voter ratification). Seligman said the circuit court improperly halted a democratic process and that the challengers’ arguments lack merit on the merits.

The justices pressed counsel about two core legal questions: whether a special session called and governed by the General Assembly exceeded its authorized scope, and how to interpret the phrase "next general election" in Article 12. Several justices questioned whether the word "election" in the provision refers to the single November election day or to the broader voting process that includes early voting.

Tillman J. Breckenridge, arguing for the Commonwealth, urged a textual and purposive reading that treats the "next general election" as the November election event when members of the House of Delegates are chosen, and he said that reading better serves the provision's goal of giving voters time to learn about amendments before they vote.

Thomas R. McCarthy, representing respondents challenging the amendment, argued that the constitutional amendment process requires strict compliance and that the special session here improperly expanded its scope; he also argued the failure to satisfy the publication and notice steps in section 30-13 meant many Virginians voted before knowing the amendment was proposed. McCarthy told the court that the record shows "more than 1,000,000 people voted before this proposed amendment was ever even proposed."

Counsel also told the court about related litigation: an appeal and a motion to expedite and a separate injunction ruling on map compactness by the circuit court in Richmond. The court heard a short rebuttal from appellants emphasizing federal cases and statutory interpretations that identify the day of election in November as the operative day, then adjourned without issuing a decision.

The justices did not announce a ruling and the case remains under submission. The court’s eventual opinion will resolve whether the amendment stands, and whether statutory notice rules or the special-session procedure described on the record require invalidation of the referendum.