>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
During a Friday interview with CNN anchor Jake Tapper, Cuccinelli didn’t hold back in his response.
“Well, it certainly was flagrantly misleading, but my basic reaction is that I appreciate lower court wins, but the Virginia Supreme Court is going to decide this,” he said.
Cuccinelli pointed to what he described as over a century of legal precedent in Virginia, arguing that referendums are not just political exercises but a formal part of the legislative process.
“Over a hundred years of Virginia legal precedent says that the vote in a referendum is part of the legislative process. It’s analogous to a governor signing a bill,” he said.
That distinction, he explained, is key to understanding why the legal challenge is unfolding the way it is. According to Cuccinelli, challenges typically come after a measure passes, not before.
“You don’t sue on a bill that hasn’t passed yet. So what they’ve done here in terms of timing is very much in keeping with the Virginia legal history,” he added.
Still, while he defended the timing of the lawsuit, Cuccinelli sharply criticized how the referendum itself was handled by lawmakers. He argued that the process used to bring the measure before voters may have ignored clear constitutional requirements.
“What isn’t in keeping with Virginia legal history is how this general assembly has so blatantly ignored the requirements of the constitution to amend the [state] constitution,” he said.
Cuccinelli made it clear he expects the state’s highest court to act quickly. In fact, he suggested the entire measure could be thrown out as soon as next month.
“So I think it’s highly likely that this will be overturned probably in May,” he said.
The conversation also touched on the role of campaign money in pushing the referendum across the finish line. While Cuccinelli acknowledged that funding may have influenced voters, he insisted it won’t be enough to save the measure in court.
“It’s hard to say that money didn’t make that difference, but now they have to win four constitutional challenges, state constitutional to clarify, challenges, and they have to win all four of them to hold on to this referendum,” he said.
He didn’t mince words about the likelihood of that happening.
“I just don’t think they can do it. There’s some very basic processes in the Constitution for amending the Constitution that they ignored,” he said.
Supporters of the measure have argued that the will of the voters should ultimately prevail. But Cuccinelli pushed back, suggesting that the process itself cannot be overlooked, no matter how many ballots were cast.
“And now they’re gonna say, just like Terry did, well, you know, three million people voted, and you can’t ignore the will of the people,” he said.
He countered that argument directly.
“Well, they were ignoring the will of the people and how they brought this forward. And now we’re gonna have it decided by the Virginia Supreme Court,” he said.
In a striking prediction, Cuccinelli even suggested the court’s decision could be unanimous.
“I wouldn’t be surprised to see a seven-zero ruling throwing this out,” he said.
As legal challenges unfold, the case is shaping up to be one of the most consequential redistricting fights in the country. Courts are increasingly becoming the final arbiters in these disputes, and Virginia may be the next major battleground.
With midterm elections looming, the timeline for a final ruling could have far-reaching political consequences. If the map is struck down, it could reshape not only Virginia’s political landscape but also the broader fight for control in Washington.
