Hijacking the Special Session: Virginia Supreme Court Oral Arguments Yesterday
Yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments pertaining to cases previously brought prior to the April 21st referendum election throughout the commonwealth.
Initially, the justices had lifted the temporary restraining order issued by Tazewell County judge Jack Hurley, Jr., without considering the merits of the case. The Gateway Pundit reported on the issues that were facing the Va. Supreme Court ahead of the referendum vote.
However, the justices determined that they could only rule on the merits of the case if the election succeeded in passing the amendment, allowing the redrawing of districts to favor a new map giving Democrats a 10-to-1 congressional majority in an essentially evenly divided state. The previous map was 6 to 5 in favor of Democrats.
Virginia requires an amendment to be proposed and agreed upon by a majority of the General Assembly. Then, in the “first regular session held after the next general election,” members of the General Assembly must agree upon the amendment a second time in the new General Assembly. Several legal experts have previously suggested that the ruling should favor the nullification of the election on the grounds that numerous procedural requirements were not followed in the process to propose and pass the amendment.
Yesterday, the seven justices heard oral arguments, days after the election.
Appellants Argue the Definition of the Term “Election”
During the oral arguments, a Justice asked, “Do you agree that the word ‘next’ in modifying ‘next general election for the House of Delegates,’ means that if the election has started, that’s not the one, you have to go to the next one? Your disagreement with the other side is when the election starts?”
Appellant’s counsel responded that he disagreed with the definition of the word ‘election’ used by challengers on “the other side.” He noted that the Constitution, in five separate provisions, defines the election as “a single day” that “takes place in November, not over a three month period that begins in September.”
“So your position requires us to interpret “election” in such a manner that literally every single vote that is cast for whatever the office is is cast before the election even begins?” the Justice asked.
“Yes, your Honor,” he replied, explaining that it’s consistent with the interpretation of the federal government and “sister states.”
The Justice then noted that constitutional provisions, if not specifically defined, are meant to be interpreted the way the people who ratified them would have.
“Do you think it is at all anomalous to tell somebody that when they went and voted…irrevocably cast their vote, that they were not actively participating in the election when they cast their ballot?” he asked.
Counsel tried to argue that the word “election” is defined; however, the Justice pointed out it was not defined in Article XII Section I that outlines the amendment process, and while the term “elected” appears in other provisions, it is not the word “election,” noting that one is a verb and the other a noun.
Shockingly, to justify the proposed amendment coming during the election but after someone had already cast their ballot, counsel argued that is a risk they are taking in utilizing the option to cast their ballot early.
Watch the exchange in the thread below:
The Virginia Solicitor General making the argument that “next general election” ONLY means “Election Day” (totally different meanings) and that “elected” somehow equals “election” is insane.
Keep in mind this is the party that just argued in RNC v. Watson that “Election Day” can… pic.twitter.com/4u4Oqz5jOT
— CannCon (@canncon) April 28, 2026
In the clip below, the Justice noted that in the General Assembly debates over Virginia’s 1971 Constitution, “at least a few of the members” said the reason for the intervening election requirement was to ensure people knew how their delegates voted on a proposal before they cast their ballots for or against their incumbent delegate and to allow their opponent to say they would have voted differently.
Counsel argued, and the Justice agrees, that the legislators’ statements do not supersede the plain text of the Constitution. But that still does not help define the term “the next general election”. It does, however, offer context of the legislators’ intent in the requirement and whether the proposal can be made in the middle of an ongoing election.
Here, the Solicitor argues that the intent of the legislator is irrelevant!
Um, what?? This didn’t need to be said by every legislator because it was a common sense idea to justify why a general election between the proposal and the passage of the proposal a second time… pic.twitter.com/voU05gqnTU
— CannCon (@canncon) April 28, 2026
Anecdotal of Disenfranchised Democrat Voter Unchallenged
Counsel for the appellees in their response referenced a sworn affidavit from Camilla Simon, a Democrat voter and plaintiff in the case who voted early during the 2025 general election for her delegate, Rodney Willett. Willett went on to be the chief patron of the resolution that proposed the constitutional amendment introduced late in the 2025 general election.
Counsel notes that Simon had already voted and was “very unhappy” about the proposal and wished she could change her vote for Willett. A Justice interrupted to inquire whether the trial court had accepted that as a fact. Counsel stated it was accepted and was unchallenged by the appellants.
Counsel continued, “In any event, she, like a million or more other people, voted before this amendment was ever even proposed. None of these voters had any idea this was coming. And that’s not how the process is supposed to work because, as I mentioned before, it’s the People of the commonwealth, the voters, who possess the power to amend or modify the constitution. And denying them the knowledge that this proposed amendment was coming through undermines the whole process.”
This is the ONLY argument for yesterday’s Virginia Supreme Court hearing on the illegal amendment “passed” that matters.
THE ONLY ONE.
Listen to the entire 1:24.
But, there’s still at least five other ways the Democrats violated the VA Constitution and law.
They’re gonna be… pic.twitter.com/sPeZdRNM9f
— CannCon (@canncon) April 28, 2026
The Special Session Was Hi-Jacked to Propose the Amendment
In Virginia, a Special Session of the General Assembly may be called by the Governor or by a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the General Assembly. House Joint Resolution 428 called for a Special Session to address “budget bills.” HJR 428 reads in part:
“…the General Assembly does hereby apply to the Governor to convene the General Assembly in a special session on Monday, May 13, 2024, for the purpose of considering Budget Bills; and be it”
Appellee’s counsel argued that if a proposal for the amendment had been included in the purpose of the bill for the special session, the General Assembly would not have been able to muster the two-thirds vote calling for the session.
But calling for a special session to consider budgetary bills was a sneaky way to assemble the legislature, introduce the proposed amendment, and then pass it with a simple majority, which Democrats hold in the General Assembly. The makeup is 64 to 36 in the House of Delegates and 21 to 19 in the Senate. Neither would have met the two-thirds requirement for a special session had the bill included a proposal to amend the constitution to allow for the redrawing of congressional districts.
Counsel notes that there is no known precedent for the Assembly taking on additional business during a special session outside the bounds of the agreed-upon issues.
Watch this shocking exchange here:
The Justice here doesn’t appear to know who called the Special Session that resulted in the proposed amendment, which is concerning.
But appellee’s counsel argues, excellently, that an amendment requires only a 1/3 + 1 vote to block the special session. But since the special… pic.twitter.com/XvjHn0Kss1
— CannCon (@canncon) April 28, 2026
General Assembly Says ‘We Do What We Want’
In one of the most shocking exchanges during the hearing, counsel for the appellants argued that once in the special session, the General Assembly can ultimately ignore the bounds set forth in the bill and conduct any business they see fit with a simple majority.
Counsel stated:
“I want to reiterate the fact that the challengers’ sole argument with respect to the scope of business of the special session…is that they purportedly exercised a power not found in the text of the constitution to limit the scope of that special session. I just want to point out that HJR 428…says ‘the business shall be to consider such matters as are provided for by the procedural resolution adopted to govern the conduct of business coming before the special session.'”
“So the General Assembly is the master of its own operations? And if they wanted to close the door more tightly, it could, if it wants to leave it ajar, it can?” a Justice asked.
“Yes, that’s correct, and they can change that by majority vote at any time,” counsel responded.
“But in other words, if they had a pretty airtight resolution saying ‘we’re only gonna look at this one thing and absolutely nothing else,’ then you might agree…”, the Justice asked before being interrupted.
“No, your Honor,” counsel responded.
This should terrify every citizen in every state that has a similar stipulation (and most do).
If I am understanding this correctly, the General Assembly (state legislature) can essentially do whatever they want when granted a special session on declared intent.
The idea that… pic.twitter.com/cYOIvRdRAJ
— CannCon (@canncon) April 28, 2026
Shockingly, the use of the term “restore fairness” in the question proposed on the ballot did not come up once during the entirety of the arguments.
The Virginia Supreme Court today denied a request to pause the order blocking the referendum.
The post Hijacking the Special Session: Virginia Supreme Court Oral Arguments Yesterday appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.