Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore fired back at Democrats after reports surfaced that national and state party leaders held discussions about reversing a Supreme Court of Virginia ruling that blocked their preferred congressional map, calling the effort "insane" and accusing House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of a raw power grab.
The 4-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of Virginia struck down Democrats' redistricting effort, which would have produced a lopsided 10-1 congressional map in the commonwealth. Rather than accept the court's decision, Democrats reportedly convened to explore ways to revive the map, including options that would target the justices themselves.
The New York Times reported Monday on a meeting between national and Virginia Democrats to discuss ways to bring back the blocked map. Among the options reportedly discussed: lowering the retirement age of state justices, re-trying the case before a handpicked court, and leveraging a prior ruling from Tazewell County. By late Monday, Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell announced that an emergency application for relief had been filed with the Supreme Court of the United States, brought by himself, House Speaker Don Scott, and Senate President Pro Tem L. Louise Lucas.
Kilgore, a Republican from Gate City, did not mince words about the Democrats' reported strategy. In an interview with Fox News Digital, he laid out his objections in blunt terms:
"It is insane, is my first take on that, because I mean, it would be crazy to throw out judges for making the right decision."
He went further, arguing that the maneuvers would not survive public scrutiny, or legal deadlines.
"That would just be beyond the pale. I think a lot of Virginians would see through that. And it's too late for them to do it as a matter of law."
Kilgore pointed to a May 12 pre-primary deadline as a practical barrier to Democrats' plans. He also noted that the independent redistricting commission, created by a 2020 referendum, has already drawn state-legislative districts without challenge, making any attempt to dismantle it a harder sell politically and legally.
The minority leader reserved his sharpest criticism for Jeffries, the New York Democrat who has drawn repeated controversy for his combative rhetoric and willingness to escalate political confrontations.
"That just shows you how power-hungry Hakeem Jeffries and his Democrats are up there, and I'm glad the Supreme Court followed the rule of law, and it was a good day for Virginia."
House Speaker Don Scott, a Democrat from Portsmouth, struck a different tone in a Thursday statement following the original ruling. Scott said he "respected" the court's decision but pledged to "fight back" and "keep fighting for a democracy where voters, not politicians, have the final say." Scott also said Virginians wanted to "fight back" against President Donald Trump.
That framing, casting the redistricting push as a defense of democracy, sits awkwardly alongside the actual mechanics of what Democrats pursued. Their April vote attempted to circumvent the very independent redistricting commission that Virginia voters approved in 2020. The commission was designed to take map-drawing out of politicians' hands. Democrats tried to put it back in theirs.
Jeffries has faced growing scrutiny over his willingness to challenge the legitimacy of courts that rule against his party's interests. Fox News Digital reached out to Jeffries for comment on the Virginia situation but received no response.
The emergency application for relief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court drew immediate ridicule, not for its legal arguments, but for its presentation. Critics pointed out several visible typos on the first page alone. Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, the Republican from Hanover who served as the original plaintiff in the case, was labeled a "Sentator" in the document. Social media users on X flagged the error, with one Virginia political commentary account highlighting the misspelling "Virgnia Sentator."
Adding to the confusion, the filing's own text appeared to reference the "Supreme Court of Virginia" in its second reference, despite being directed at the Supreme Court of the United States. Whether these were clerical oversights or signs of a rushed, last-minute legal strategy, the errors did not inspire confidence in the seriousness of the Democrats' challenge.
Rep. Ben Cline, a Virginia Republican whose Shenandoah Valley district was reportedly primed to be chopped into three pieces under the Democrats' 10-1 map, echoed Kilgore's concerns. Cline said Jeffries and national Democrats are "furious" at the Supreme Court of Virginia for "upholding the rule of law." He described the Democratic push to reshape the maps as "illegal" and urged Virginians to get involved politically.
Cline's district offers a concrete illustration of what was at stake. The blocked map would have carved up a cohesive region of the commonwealth, one with shared economic interests and cultural identity, purely to maximize Democratic seats. That the court stopped it on a 4-3 vote only underscores how narrow the margin was.
The pattern is familiar. When courts or commissions produce outcomes Democrats dislike, the response is not to accept the result but to restructure the institution. Jeffries himself has called the Supreme Court "illegitimate" when it has ruled against progressive priorities, a posture that makes the Virginia maneuvers less surprising but no less troubling.
The redistricting fight has also reignited a separate, long-simmering debate about Virginia's political geography. West Virginia lawmakers launched a bid to allow some of Virginia's more conservative, rural communities to secede from the Old Dominion. Proponents in Charleston put out maps showing potential new boundaries. The historical echo is hard to miss: West Virginia itself seceded from Virginia on June 20, 1863.
Kilgore dismissed the secession talk as premature. "I think that's a little bit premature," he said, before offering a more forward-looking message.
"I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of Virginia, and I'm going to stay right here and take Virginia back."
He pointed to the closeness of recent statewide elections as evidence that Republicans can compete without redrawing state lines. "We can take Virginia back, as you saw the close vote in the yes-no. That's where Virginians are. We're a close state. We're a purple state," Kilgore said, adding that he expects Virginia voters to "swing back hard" toward Republicans.
While some in the Democratic Party have begun to acknowledge their own leadership failures, with figures like Sen. Cory Booker calling for new party direction, the Virginia redistricting episode suggests the dominant instinct remains institutional manipulation rather than persuasion.
The core of this dispute is straightforward. In 2020, Virginia voters approved a referendum creating an independent redistricting commission. The commission was meant to prevent exactly the kind of partisan gerrymandering that both parties have practiced over the decades. Democrats supported the commission when it suited them. When it didn't, they tried an end-run in April, passing their own map through the legislature.
The Supreme Court of Virginia, by a 4-3 margin, said no. The Democrats' 10-1 map was blocked. The commission's authority was upheld.
Now, rather than accept that outcome, Democratic leaders discussed lowering the retirement age for justices who ruled against them, shopping the case to a friendlier bench, and rushing an emergency appeal to the nation's highest court, complete with a filing so sloppy it misspelled the word "Senator." Jeffries, for his part, has shifted his public messaging in other contexts when political pressure mounts, but in Virginia, the party's actions speak louder than any pivot.
Fox News Digital reported that the emergency application was filed by late Monday, with Surovell, Scott, and Lucas listed as the parties bringing the response. McDougle, the Republican who brought the original challenge, was identified as the original plaintiff. The case now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court, though whether the justices will intervene in what is fundamentally a state-level dispute over a voter-approved commission remains an open question.
Virginia's redistricting fight is not an abstract legal dispute. It determines which voters are grouped together, which communities share representation, and whether the maps reflect the will of a bipartisan commission or the preferences of one party's legislative majority. The 10-1 map would have given Democrats a near-total lock on Virginia's congressional delegation in a state Kilgore himself describes as purple.
The Supreme Court of Virginia said the map went too far. Democrats responded by discussing ways to remove or sideline the justices who stopped them. That sequence tells voters everything they need to know about which side trusts the process, and which side trusts only outcomes it controls.
When the rules produce a result you don't like, you can try to change the rules. Or you can try to change the referees. Virginia Democrats, it appears, are willing to try both.
