McDougle v. Nardo

Led by Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, Republican lawmakers sued to stop the redistricting amendment on the grounds that the legislature lacked the legal authority to pass it during the 2025 Special Session. They argue that the entire process was a "legal nullity" from the moment it was introduced because the rules for amending the Constitution were ignored in favor of speed.

• Plaintiffs (Appellees): Led by Ryan T. McDougle, the Republican Minority Leader of the Virginia Senate. He is joined by fellow GOP leaders Bill Stanley (Senate) and Terry Kilgore (House Minority Leader), along with a citizen member of the now-sidelined Redistricting Commission.
• Defendants (Appellants): The lead defendant is G. Paul Nardo, the Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates. However, the heavy lifting in court is being done by House Speaker Don Scott (D) and Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D), who intervened to defend the legislature’s actions.

The plaintiffs’ case rests on three technical, yet heavy, constitutional violations:

• The "Special Session" Scope: This is the heart of the case. Under Article IV, Section 6, the Governor calls a special session for specific purposes. Republicans argue that Speaker Don Scott (the lead defendant) "expanded" the session’s scope to include redistricting without the Governor’s permission, which is a violation of the separation of powers.
• The "Two-Session" Failure: The Virginia Constitution requires an amendment to be passed by two separately elected General Assemblies. Republicans argue that the Democrats' vote in the special session didn't count as the "second pass" because it happened too close to the 2025 election—after early voting had already begun—meaning it didn't truly happen after an intervening election cycle as intended.
• The "Postage" Requirement: An old but active statute requires that the text of a proposed amendment be mailed to every circuit court in the state 90 days before an election. The state admitted they didn't do this, and Judge Hurley ruled that this "paperwork error" was fatal to the amendment's legality.

The plaintiffs are not just arguing against the content of the redistricting map, but against the process by which the constitutional amendment was brought to the ballot.

• The "Special Session" Scope: Republicans argue that the General Assembly violated Article IV, Section 6 of the Virginia Constitution. They claim the special session used to pass the amendment was originally called for a budget dispute. Under Virginia law, they argue only the Governor has the power to expand the scope of a special session, yet the Speaker of the House was the one who added redistricting to the docket.
• The "Postage" Requirement: This is a technical but critical point. A 19th-century statutory mandate (which Republicans argue is still in effect) requires the state to mail the text of any proposed constitutional amendment to local circuit courts 90 days before an election. The state admits this didn't happen, but Democrats argue this requirement was rendered obsolete by the 1971 Constitution.
• Separation of Powers: The plaintiffs claim the legislature effectively "usurped" the executive power of the Governor by self-authorizing a constitutional change without a specific executive call for that topic.