Judge's injunction order against Virginia's election yesterday:

BREAKDOWN OF COURT'S ORDER ON GERRYMANDERING
RNC v. Steven Koski, et al. CL26-266
Tazewell County Circuit Court
Judge Jack Hurley - Final Judgment
"Having considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Judgment and the record in this case, the Court:
• GRANTS final judgment in Plaintiffs' favor on all counts of their Verified Complaint;
• DECLARES that HJR 6007 is void ab initio because it violated House Joint Resolution 428 and House Joint Resolution 6001, and any action taken thereon is an invalid expansion of the General Assembly's call to the Governor for the 2024 Special Session;
(This is the argument about the expansion of the special session beyond just a budget session, as called.)
• DECLARES that HJR 6007 is void ab initio because it violated Va. Const. art. XII, §1, as there has not been an ensuing general election of the House of Delegates, and such ensuing general election cannot occur until 2027;
(This is the constitutional procedural argument where an election for the House of Delegates must intervene between the first and second passage of the constitutional amendment by the General Assembly.)
• DECLARES that because Va. Code §30-13 has not been complied with, the votes on the proposed Constitutional Amendment taken during the 2026 Regular Session of the General Assembly are ineffective as being a second vote of the General Assembly under Va. Const. art. XII, §1;
(This is the 90-day notice provision argument wherein the notice about the special election was to be posted for 90 days prior to the election. The election started the first day of early voting, not April 21st.)
• DECLARES that HB 1384 violates the Submission Clause of Va. Const. art. XII, §1 because the ballot language proposed in HB 1384 submits to the voters a flagrantly misleading question to the voters, and because the ballot language did not accurately describe the proposed amendment as it was passed by the General Assembly;
(Finds the language on the ballot "flagrantly misleading" and unconstitutional).
• DECLARES that HB 1384 violates the Timing Clause of Va. Const. art. XII, §1 because it submitted the proposed amendment to the voters for early voting on March 6, 2026, which is sooner than the required ninety days after passage of HJ4 by the General Assembly;
(Same argument about the 90-day timeline, but finds that the law that set out the election rules was unconstitutional because of the timing of the election beginning within the 90-day window.)
• DECLARES that HB 1384 violates the Form of Laws Clause of Va. Const. art. IV, §12 both because it embraces more than one object and because its title does not accurately describe its subject matter;
(This is an argument that the law, as passed by the General Assembly, is not a single-issue bill like we have in VA, and not DC. Also, the law is not properly explained by the title of the bill.)
• DECLARES that HB 1384 violates Va. Const. art. IV, §14 because it requires mandatory satellite offices in a precise way and that requirement is withdrawn from the powers of the General Assembly in that the legislative body is prohibited to enact local, special, or private laws for the designation of places of voting.
(Blocks the Democrats use of mandatory satellite offices in certain locations, which takes that power away from the localities.)
• DECLARES that any and all votes for or against the proposed constitutional amendment in the April 21, 2026 special election are ineffective;
(VOIDS all ballots as ineffective. Meaning all ballots tossed out.)
• FINDS that all Plaintiffs have standing to obtain the declaratory and permanent injunctive relief sought in the Verified Complaint;
(Finding of standing needed to bring the case in Court and seek the relief under the law; something Dems regularly argue is lacking.)
• FINDS that the equities weigh in favor of permanent injunctive relief, that Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at all, and that Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed absent permanent injunctive relief because of the numerous violations of the constitutional amendment process and because Congressmen Cline and Griffith would be irreparably harmed by their districts changing at this juncture;
(For fairness, a permanent injunction stopping the election before irreparable harm occurred is more important that allowing the election to go through. This blocks the certification of the election.)
• Having found that Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief, the Court permanently ENJOINS Defendants and their successors from certifying the results of the April 21, 2026 special election;
(This permanently bars the Democrats from certifying the election prior to another higher courts' ruling. Effectively stopping the election in its track.)
• The Court also permanently ENJOINS Defendants and their successors from taking any actions to give effect to the proposed constitutional amendment that is the subject of the April 21, 2026 special election, including, but not limited to:
(Bars the Democrats from acting like the special election has occurred by taking the following steps:)
o updating or altering voter registration records in accordance with new congressional districts under the proposed constitutional amendment;
o updating or altering election districts, precincts, or polling places in accordance with new congressional districts under the proposed constitutional amendment;
o updating or generating pollbooks and ballots in accordance with new congressional districts under the proposed constitutional amendment; and
o proceeding with new maps or districts in any congressional primary or general election under the proposed constitutional amendment;
(This provision puts a stop on all the congressional campaigns running in these invalidated, unconstitutional districts.)
(Procedural legal jargon incoming.)
• DENIES the Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint;
• OVERRULES the Commonwealth Defendants' Plea of lmmunity and Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint;
• FINDS that Plaintiffs have complied with the County Defendants' Motion Craving Oyer, and thus DISMISSES the Motion Craving Oyer and ORDERS that the documents provided in response to the motion are made a part of the Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint;
• DENIES the County Defendants' requests for relief against the Commonwealth without prejudice;
• DENIES any other outstanding motions;
• OVERRULES any other outstanding pleas;
• SUSPENDS any bond requirement for any party petitioning or appealing from this final judgment; and
• DENIES the Commonwealth Defendants' motion to stay pending appeal.
(Stops the Dems from putting this ruling on hold while they appeal. That means this election will not move forward within another action taken by a higher court after the Dems appeal).
ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2026
Jack Hurley
Judge, Tazewell County Circuit Court"