House Speaker Mike Johnson hit back at reporters this week when asked about the redistricting fight heating up across the country between Republicans and Democrats just months before November’s midterm elections.
“Mr. Speaker, Florida redistricting is up in the air right now. Would you encourage them to go down this path as well?” a reporter asked Johnson on Capitol Hill.
“Absolutely. Florida has the right and the intention to do it and my view is that they should. I’m going to say this as well. The Democrats last night were suggesting that somehow Republicans started the midcycle redistricting. That is not true. It started in 2024 in New York,” Johnson began.
“You all remember. So the very people who are claiming that are the ones who helped orchestrate that boondoggle. They’re the ones that started that. It started even before then. I’ll take you all the way back to Eric Holder, the Attorney General, who left the Obama Administration and went out to begin the redistricting battles,” he added.
“They started that. And that’s why some states have almost entirely blue delegations and no Republicans, even though big percentages of their population vote Republican. So Democrats started this. The Republican states are doing what they can do lawfully under their state laws. And in a state like California, Virginia, they had to defy their own constitutions to play a dishonest game. The people are taking account of this. They’re voting accordingly and we are on track to win in November. Watch. We are on track,” Johnson continued.
WATCH:
Johnson’s comments came after a judge in Virginia voided a voter-approved redistricting measure and blocked certification of the election results, ruling that the amendment violated multiple provisions of the state constitution, according to a final judgment entered April 22 in Tazewell County Circuit Court.
Judge Jack Hurley determined that both the proposed constitutional amendment and the legislative process used to advance it were “void ab initio,” meaning legally invalid from the outset.
He ordered state officials not to certify the results of the April 21 special election or take steps to implement new congressional district maps, Law Commentary reported.
The ruling nullifies votes cast in the referendum, despite preliminary results showing a narrow majority in favor of the measure. It also imposes a permanent injunction preventing election officials from altering voter records, redrawing precincts, or conducting elections under the proposed map.
The case was brought by Republican groups and two sitting members of Congress, who argued the plan would unlawfully reshape their districts. The court found the challengers had standing and would face irreparable harm if the map were implemented, the site reported, adding:
At issue is how Virginia’s constitution governs amendments. Under state law, a proposed constitutional amendment must pass through two separate sessions of the General Assembly, with a general election of the House of Delegates occurring between those votes. The court found that this requirement was not met and that the next qualifying election cannot occur until 2027. State constitutions often require this multi-step process to ensure that major changes are considered over time and not approved in a single legislative cycle.
Judge Hurley also identified a series of procedural violations tied to how the measure was advanced. Lawmakers exceeded the scope of the 2024 special legislative session when they introduced the amendment, and the timing of the election did not comply with constitutional requirements. Virginia law requires a minimum 90-day period between legislative approval of an amendment and the start of voting. Early voting began on March 6, less than 90 days after passage, which the court found did not meet that standard.
Hurley also focused on the ballot language, finding it was “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately reflect the amendment approved by the General Assembly.
Election law requires ballot questions to clearly describe the measure being presented to voters, and courts can invalidate a proposal if the wording is found to be misleading or incomplete.
The requirements govern how laws are enacted rather than their substance, and failure to comply with them can render a measure invalid regardless of voter approval, Law Commentary added.
The Tuesday referendum involved a constitutional amendment that would allow state legislators to redraw congressional district boundaries mid-decade.
Under current law, redistricting in Virginia occurs once every 10 years following the U.S. Census and involves a bipartisan commission, WRIC reported late Tuesday.
Under the plan, many residents of Virginia would be placed in new congressional districts, changing which members of Congress represent them and vote on their behalf. Based on historical voting patterns, 10 of the state’s 11 districts would be expected to favor Democrats.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
