1/ VA CASE UPDATE: Let me walk you through the Attorney General's thirty-eight page Motion for Emergency Stay, filed Wednesday to try to save the redistricting referendum.🧵
2/ The ballot question.
What he argues: The ballot language was fine. Voters understood what they were voting on. The circuit court had no business second-guessing the General Assembly's drafting choices.
What he argues: The ballot language was fine. Voters understood what they were voting on. The circuit court had no business second-guessing the General Assembly's drafting choices.
3/ What happened: The ballot asked voters whether to amend the Constitution "to restore fairness in the upcoming elections."
The Attorney General's brief is thirty-eight pages long. But he never quotes the entire ballot question, including that phrase. Not once.
The Attorney General's brief is thirty-eight pages long. But he never quotes the entire ballot question, including that phrase. Not once.
4/ He quotes the words before that line. He quotes the words after it. But he selectively skips the eight words that are the entire reason we are in court to begin with.
5/ If the language were defensible, he would have defended it. A lawyer who believes in his ballot question quotes his ballot question. What is there to hide from those reading your Motion? Or may be reading the ballot question for the first time. (Shocking, right?)
6/ The intervening election.
What he says: Article XII of the Constitution requires a House of Delegates election between the two legislative votes on a constitutional amendment. Therefore, the November 2025 election counts.
What he says: Article XII of the Constitution requires a House of Delegates election between the two legislative votes on a constitutional amendment. Therefore, the November 2025 election counts.
7/ "The election," he argues, means one single Tuesday in November. Early voting is merely a "statutory accommodation," not part of the real election.
8/ *record scratch* That's right. Can you believe it? This is the same political coalition that has spent the last decade telling everyone early voting is voting.
They expanded it. They defended it in court. They built the drop boxes. They extended the deadlines.
They expanded it. They defended it in court. They built the drop boxes. They extended the deadlines.
9/ Now that the General Assembly took its first vote on this amendment after Virginians were already casting ballots in November 2025, suddenly Election Day returned to a one-day event. Anything else was just an "accommodation" for the election.
10/ Of course, early voting is only real when it helps Democrats. Early voting suddenly disappears when it does not. Pick one.
11/ Scott v. James and Judicial Review.
What Jones argues: Courts should not interfere with elections. He cites Scott v. James, a 1912 Virginia Supreme Court case, for the proposition that judicial intervention in the electoral process is disfavored.
What Jones argues: Courts should not interfere with elections. He cites Scott v. James, a 1912 Virginia Supreme Court case, for the proposition that judicial intervention in the electoral process is disfavored.
12/ What Jones conveniently left out:
Scott v. James says courts should not enjoin an election before it happens. It does not bar review aftwards.
Judge Hurley did not stop this election. The election already happened. The judge reviewed it afterward, which is what courts do.
Scott v. James says courts should not enjoin an election before it happens. It does not bar review aftwards.
Judge Hurley did not stop this election. The election already happened. The judge reviewed it afterward, which is what courts do.
13/ The Attorney General's reading takes a rule about pre-election injunctions and stretches it into a rule that also forbids post-election review.
14/ If courts cannot step in before and cannot step in after, then Article XII of the Constitution is unenforceable. A rule that cannot be enforced is not a rule. It is a suggestion.
15/ Bottom line.
The Attorney General is asking the Court of Appeals to stay a ruling so the state can certify a vote on a ballot question he will not quote, under an Article XII timeline he has to redefine, protected by a 1912 case that does not say what he needs it to say.
The Attorney General is asking the Court of Appeals to stay a ruling so the state can certify a vote on a ballot question he will not quote, under an Article XII timeline he has to redefine, protected by a 1912 case that does not say what he needs it to say.
16/ Hearings begin Monday. I will keep you posted.
— Del. Wren Williams, 47th District
— Del. Wren Williams, 47th District
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
