Exclusive: Virginia Political Expert Carolyn Fiddler Breaks Down VA Supreme Court Decision

The Virginia Supreme Court’s surprise ruling this spring nullified the April 21 statewide referendum, overturning the votes of roughly three million citizens. Four conservative justices argued that the legal definition of "election" must encompass the entire early‑voting window, a stretch that conflicts with both state statutes and the current 1971 constitution. Their decision also leaned on a century‑old provision requiring constitutional amendments to be posted for 90 days—a rule tied to the obsolete 1920 charter. This legal gymnastics sparked outrage among voters and highlighted the partisan nature of Virginia’s judicial appointments, which are made by the General Assembly.

Beyond the constitutional controversy, the decision carries hefty fiscal and democratic costs. Localities spent an estimated $5 million to staff polling places, train workers, and tabulate ballots, only to see those expenses unrecovered. Critics compare the move to the federal Bush v. Gore precedent, noting that the court effectively counted votes before confirming legality—a practice the U.S. Supreme Court warned against in later rulings. While the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision left partisan gerrymandering largely unchecked, the Virginia court’s approach sidestepped federal precedents entirely, underscoring the growing autonomy of state courts in election disputes.

Looking ahead, the ruling is likely to face appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and could trigger legislative maneuvers to restore the referendum’s effect or to amend the appointment process for justices. Advocacy groups are already mobilizing to protect voter rights and to demand reimbursement for the wasted election funds. For business leaders and policymakers, the episode serves as a cautionary tale about the volatility of election law and the importance of clear, consistent statutory definitions to safeguard democratic stability.