general election

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia Supreme Court justices on Monday questioned whether the state’s Democrat-led legislature complied with constitutional requirements when it sent a congressional redistricting plan to voters, in a case that could help decide the balance of power in the U.S. House.

The new districts, which could net Democrats four additional seats, won narrow voter approval last week. But a Republican legal challenge contends the General Assembly violated procedural rules by placing the constitutional amendment before voters to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. If the court agrees that lawmakers broke the rules, it could invalidate the amendment and render last week’s statewide vote meaningless.

The Virginia court proceedings mark the latest twist in a national redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats seeking an advantage in a November midterm election that will determine whether Republicans maintain their narrow majority in the U.S. House.

President Trump kicked off a tit-for-tat round of gerrymandering last summer when he urged Texas Republicans to redraw districts to their favor in an attempt to win several additional House seats. That set off a chain reaction of similar moves in other states, leading to the voter approval last week of Virginia’s new map.

Next up is Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has included congressional redistricting on the agenda for a special session of the GOP-controlled Legislature beginning Tuesday.

Virginia arguments focus on what counts as an `election’

During Monday’s arguments, the Virginia Supreme Court focused on whether the new congressional districts should be invalidated because of the process used by lawmakers. The justices issued no immediate ruling.

Because the state’s redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a resolution in separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the ballot.

The legislature’s first vote occurred in October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. Judicial questioning focused on whether that was too late, because early voting already had begun.

Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature’s first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he told judges.

But an attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, said “election” means the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that’s the case, then the legislature’s initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution, he said.

Attorneys argue over the rights of voters

The purpose of Virginia’s two-step amendment process, with an intervening election, is so voters can know whether legislative candidates support or oppose a proposed constitutional amendment, McCarthy said.

He pointed to the case of Democratic voter Camilla Simon, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit alongside Republican state lawmakers, who cast an early vote last fall for Democratic Del. Rodney Willett. After she voted, Willett sponsored the Democratic redistricting amendment, and Simon wished she could have undone her vote, McCarthy said.

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

Those defending the Democratic redistricting plan also contend that the voters’ will should be respected.

The people voted to ratify the constitutional amendment, “and the challengers are asking to overturn that democratic result,” Seligman told reporters after the arguments.

Nationwide redistricting battle has no clear winner so far

So far, the two major parties have battled to a near draw in the states that have redrawn their congressional maps for this year’s midterms.

Republicans think they could win up to nine more seats under revised districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they could win as many as 10 additional seats under new districts in California, Utah and Virginia. But legal challenges remain in both Virginia and Missouri.

Virginia currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who were elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census. The new districts, which narrowly won voter approval on April 21, could give Democrats an improved chance to win 10 districts.

Some candidates already have begun campaigning based on the new districts in advance of the state’s Aug. 4 primary election.

More court battles could remain in Virginia

In January, a judge in rural Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia, ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session last fall. Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. also ruled that lawmakers failed to initially approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year’s general election and that the state had failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law. As a result, he said, the amendment is invalid and void.

The Virginia Supreme Court placed Hurley’s order on hold and allowed the redistricting vote to proceed before hearing arguments on the case.

During Monday’s arguments, justices also raised questions about the ability of lawmakers to expand the agenda for their special session and whether the three-month public notice requirement was important enough to thwart a voter-approved amendment.

Republicans have filed at least two additional legal challenges, which also are winding their way through the courts.

Robertson and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. AP writers Allen G. Breed in Richmond and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are struggling to come up for air after outside groups flooded their first round of midterm primaries with campaign cash.

As the Democratic Party fights to regain control of Congress, organizations affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence have dominated the airwaves, sometimes leaving candidates on the sidelines of their own campaigns.

Democratic pollster Zac McCrary said the primaries have “become proxy wars, and the candidates are almost afterthoughts in larger skirmishes.”

Now the Democratic National Committee is advancing a resolution at its New Orleans spring meeting to condemn the surge of spending that has scrambled its primaries and exacerbated tensions within the party.

Candidates who lost have pointed their fingers at special interests, blaming them for derailing their campaigns. Others who are still in the running are courting voters by denouncing deep-pocketed outside groups. Even those who have benefited from the spending have expressed concern.

“It’s definitely a brave new world,” McCrary said.

“We’re not talking about doubling of campaign expenditures,” he added. “We’re talking about 10 times or 20 times more.”

Dan Sena, a former executive director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said party organizations are no longer the ones with the clout to push favored candidates.

“All that’s been completely smashed now,” Sena said. Even if Democrats regain control of the U.S. House, he warned that outside spending could damage the party in the long run.

Referring to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, he said, “You’re going to hand Jeffries a caucus that is divided.”

Democrats bear the brunt of big spending

So far this cycle, outside money in U.S. House races has largely targeted districts particularly friendly to Democrats, meaning the primaries will likely determine who will win the general election in November. After a record number of House members retired this year, many of those seats opened up for the first time in years, drawing dozens of Democratic hopefuls.

In Illinois, for example, there was more than $125 million in outside spending across five open Democratic primaries. In all but one of those congressional races, the outside spending exceeded candidate spending.

While it’s still early in the calendar, there are indicators that many more races could see big spending. Almost 40 seats have already seen more than $1 million in outside spending, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

In Illinois, the top three spenders in U.S. House races were groups affiliated with American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, according to AdImpact, which tracks ad buys in political races, followed by the cryptocurrency-affiliated Fairshake.

AIPAC was founded to support strong ties between the U.S. and Israel, a particularly controversial issue as Democratic hostility toward Israel rises over the war in Gaza. Some Democratic National Committee, or DNC, members wanted to call out AIPAC’s role in primaries, but the final resolution did not.

“We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement.

Campaign spending has divided Democrats

The latest DNC meeting marks another chapter in longstanding disputes between progressives and the party establishment.

Progressives want the party to adopt official language that all Democratic presidential contenders oppose money from dark-money groups, or super PACs that aren’t required to disclose their donors.

“It’s necessary that we actually have the party do something on this issue, not just say something,” said Larry Cohen, co-chair of Our Revolution, a progressive group founded by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats.

The resolution being advanced at the DNC meeting in New Orleans is viewed by progressives as a step toward that goal. However, some Democrats warn against weakening their candidates when facing a Republican Party that’s flush with cash.

“Provided that we don’t handcuff ourselves in the general elections — because if the Republicans are going to use dark money in general elections, we should be using our money in general elections, too — if you provide an even playing field, I think then that’s fine,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat. “But we just can’t be handcuffing ourselves in the general to lose races.”

Any DNC resolutions would not stop outside groups from surging funds into primary contests or general elections. But some Democrats believe the issue is core to the party’s values.

“We should eliminate any super PAC in a Democratic primary. And I think every presidential candidate in 2028 should pledge that they will not have any super PAC spending in a Democratic primary,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, a progressive and possible Democratic presidential contender who co-chaired Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign.

“That should be a litmus test,” Khanna argued. “If you’re not willing to take that pledge, then you’re part of the problem.”

Askarinam, Brown and Sweedler write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from New York.