The Virginia Supreme Court grappled Monday over the validity of the legislative process leading to last week’s redistricting referendum, during oral arguments in one of the challenges to the commonwealth’s new congressional map.

An eventual decision on the lawsuit from Virginia Republican legislative leaders could determine the fate of the new congressional map for the midterm elections, where Democrats would be favored in 10 of the state’s 11 House seats. Democrats hold five of the seats in the current map.

The commonwealth and Democratic leaders in the legislature had asked the justices to overturn lower court rulings that had invalidated the referendum process. Virginia voters approved the referendum on April 21.

Matthew Seligman, arguing on behalf of Virginia Democratic leaders, argued that the lower court read too much into the inner workings of the legislature when it overturned the referendum process. He argued that the legislature complied with the commonwealth’s constitution in setting up last week’s vote.

“The General Assembly and the people, thus complied, strictly, with every step that the constitution requires. That is all that Article 12 requires,” Seligman said of the Virginia constitutional provision at issue.

Only three justices asked questions during Monday’s arguments, mostly focusing on issues around the legislature’s use of a special session last October to kickstart the redistricting process. The lower court had faulted the legislature for reconvening a previously recessed special session and doing so after early voting had already started.

The justices did not indicate Monday when they may rule but had previously allowed the case to proceed on an accelerated timeline.

The Democrat-held Virginia legislature started the redistricting process in 2025, passing the first step of the referendum in the weeks before the general election. The legislature then reconvened in January to set up the referendum for the vote last week.

The Virginia Constitution requires that a constitutional referendum be passed by the legislature in two separate sessions, with a regular general election in between.

National and Virginia-based Republicans have led multiple court challenges to the referendum process and won at a lower court.

Tillman J. Breckenridge, Virginia’s solicitor general, argued Monday that the intervening election requirement was meant to ensure that voters had enough time to become educated on a ballot issue when it was voted on, not voice their opinion during that intervening election.

“I feel like it would be patently unfair to override the people’s vote because of a concern that they had not gotten the opportunity to voice their opinion months earlier,” Breckenridge said.

Thomas McCarthy, arguing on behalf of the Republican challengers, argued that many Virginians had already cast their ballots early in 2025 when the legislature started the redistricting process.

“None of these voters had any idea this was coming, and that’s not how the process is supposed to work,” McCarthy said.

Similar arguments convinced Judge Jack Hurley Jr. of the state’s Circuit Court of Tazewell County in January to issue his first order blocking the referendum. The Virginia Supreme Court allowed the referendum process to proceed before considering the validity of the process after the referendum.

The challenges come amid a nationwide mid-decade redistricting push started by Texas, which redistricted to target Democrat-held seats last year at the behest of President Donald Trump. Several other states followed, including Missouri and California, targeting seats held by the minority party in each state.