The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled against the Democrats’ effort to redraw the state’s maps. In April, Virginians voted to pass a new map which would have likely taken away four seats from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now the state supreme court has ruled 4-3 that the Democrat-backed referendum is “null and void.” “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void. For this reason, the congressional district maps issued by this Court in 2021 pursuant to Article II, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia remain the governing maps for the upcoming 2026 congressional elections,” the court’s opinion ruled. The opinion called the Democrats’ effort “partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the Commonwealth.” BREAKINGThe Virginia Supreme Court struck down the redistricting ballot initiative. Why? Because the Democrats ignored the plain text of the Virginia Constitution.1/4 pic.twitter.com/DvFGlFUvfd— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 8, 2026 Article XII, Section 1 of the state’s Constitution requires constitutional amendments to occur before or after a general election. However, Democrats began the voting process to amend the constitution in the middle of the 2025 state elections, after 1.3 million votes had already been cast. Despite Gov. Abigail Spanberger vowing while she was campaigning that she had “no plans” to pass a redistricting measure, this was a national push by Democrats.  The state’s Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement Friday, “This decision silences the voices of the millions of Virginians who cast their ballots in every corner of the Commonwealth, and it fuels the growing fears across our nation about the state of our democracy.” Jones believes the Virginia Supreme Court “contorted the plain language of the Constitution” and called the ruling a “wrong legal conclusion that fit their political agenda.” “My team is carefully reviewing this unprecedented order and we are evaluating every legal pathway forward to defend the will of the people and protect the integrity of Virginia’s elections,” Jones stated. Former Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin stated on X, “Justice has been served.”“Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in Richmond knowingly violated our constitution to disenfranchise millions of Virginians,” Youngkin stated. Justice has been served. From the beginning, this was the most obvious violation of Virginia’s Constitution. Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in Richmond knowingly violated our constitution to disenfranchise millions of Virginians.The Constitution prevailed, and Virginians will… https://t.co/WkoEwhMPOH— Glenn Youngkin (@GlennYoungkin) May 8, 2026 This story is developing and will be updated.

In an opinion written by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, the Virginia Supreme Court has today ruled that the controversial redistricting referendum—narrowly approved by voters on April 21, 2026—was unconstitutional. The court determined in a 4-3 vote, with no dissenting opinion, that the Democrat-led General Assembly violated key procedural requirements under the Virginia Constitution when it advanced the amendment during a rushed special session, bypassing proper public notice and timing mandates. As a result, the proposed congressional maps, which would have dramatically shifted the state’s delegation toward a 10-1 Democratic advantage, have been invalidated. This ruling is unequivocally the best outcome for Virginia. For years, the Commonwealth has prided itself on competitive elections and balanced representation, reflecting its status as a purple state with diverse communities from the suburbs of Northern Virginia to the more rural areas of Shenandoah Valley and Tidewater. The rejected maps were a blatant partisan power grab, designed not to ensure fair districts but to entrench one party’s dominance ahead of the 2026 midterms. By striking them down, the court has preserved the integrity of the redistricting process and prevented the erosion of competitive districts that allow voters—not mapmakers—to decide elections. Virginia’s maps should be drawn through transparent, constitutional means, not backroom maneuvers that ignore the state’s foundational rules. This decision upholds the principle that no legislature, regardless of its majority, can rewrite the rules midstream to favor itself. It protects minority-party voices, encourages broader accountability, and reinforces trust in our democratic institutions. The fight is not over.  According to Ken Cucinelli II, former attorney general of Virginia, four constitutional challenges have already been teed up, but for now, this is a huge win for good governance, the rule of law, and the long-term health of Virginia and the country.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

I always liked the premise of the TV show “The Sopranos,” a guy stuck between “the Family” and his family. I never watched much because I didn’t have the spare change to pay for HBO, but I catch up on episodes here and there. One of the returning themes I enjoyed was the tension between the crew and the New York Lupertazzi family. I was reminded of this theme as Fox News reported that the FBI investigation into Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas and her business empire was started under President Joe “the Big Guy” Biden. As leaks from investigators speaking on condition of anonymity began to probe into alleged associations and use of a political office to attain financial benefits, I was left chuckling under my breath. “Well, they ought to know,” I thought. The senator’s statement posted to social media following the raid takes the position that famous New York Mob attorney Bruce Cutler used to take each time Rudy Giuliani would bring in his real-life mob boss client, John Gotti. Lucas posted on X: “Today’s actions by Federal agents are about far more than one state senator; they are about power and who is allowed to use it on behalf of the people. What we saw fits a clear pattern from this administration: when challenged, they try to intimidate and silence the voices who stand up to them.” She added: “I am not backing down, and I will keep fighting for the people of Portsmouth and the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Notice the missing declaration of “I didn’t do it.” Congressman Bobby Scott also issued a statement: “Like all Americans, Senator Lucas has a right to due process and a presumption of innocence.” I recall the same congressman calling for a criminal investigation into President Donald Trump after reports surfaced that alleged Trump tried to ask election officials in Georgia to “find” votes for a victory in 2020. Presumption of innocence, huh? Scott also added, “This is occurring just two weeks after Senator Lucas helped lead the successful effort by Virginia voters to reject President Trump’s attempt to rig the midterm elections.” He left out the $70 million from everywhere but Virginia that was spent on that referendum and the likelihood that it won’t survive the Virginia Supreme Court. Senator Lucas’ dispensary, the Cannabis Outlet, is no stranger to controversy. In 2022, the store was caught selling bars made out of the cereal Lucky Charms that were laced with Delta-9 THC. It’s anyone’s guess what the FBI investigation might find this time. As James Spurlock reported in March for Bacon’s Rebellion, “She [Sen. Lucas] also serves on the Education and Health Committee, which oversees the Departments of Medical Assistance Services, Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, and Health. She serves as CEO and President of, Lucas Lodge, LLC, which is regulated by DBHDS and has been funded by Medicaid since 2005. It provides residential, transportation, and day-support services to individuals with intellectual disabilities in the City of Portsmouth.”  That doesn’t make it hard to see places the FBI might want to investigate. We haven’t even mentioned that Lucas’ Cannabis Outlet would benefit enormously under SB 542, a bill that she co-sponsored this session. It sets up a legal marijuana marketplace and taxing authority which, after a back-and-forth with Gov. Abigail Spanberger, is on the governor’s desk waiting to be signed into law. No conflicts of interest there. Sure, her supporters say the investigation is because Trump lost a referendum vote. But could it instead be because she was muscling in on Joe “The Big Guy” Biden’s territory of using his government position to make money.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced Thursday he is resigning from his role, effective June 7. He will serve as the vice president of strategic research and innovation with Alliance Defending Freedom. Yost has served as Ohio’s top law enforcement official since 2019 and was preceded by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. He previously served as state auditor. He also briefly ran for governor for the 2026 election to replace the term-limited DeWine but withdrew last May after Vivek Ramaswamy earned key endorsements from the Ohio Republican Party and President Donald Trump. The attorney general shared the news over X, linking to a statement from ADF’s Kristen Waggoner, which described Yost as a “proven champion of freedom.” I begin a new chapter June 8 as VP of Strategic Research and Innovation at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit law firm that’s won 18 cases at SCOTUS in the last 15 years.I’ve been honored to serve Ohio, and will continue to fight for freedom! https://t.co/zTsTLdycAC— Dave Yost (@DaveYostOH) May 7, 2026 “We are honored to welcome Attorney General Yost to ADF at this defining moment,” Waggoner said in the statement. “General Yost is a proven, bold advocate of First Amendment freedoms who brings decades of government, policy, and litigation experience to the fight for truth—in the courtroom and the public square. As censorship accelerates and God-given rights face unprecedented attack, ADF is advancing on new fronts, and we are fortunate to have a leader of General Yost’s stature and conviction standing with us. He doesn’t just understand these issues—he has spent his career fighting for them.” Yost also chimed in about what’s at stake and how ADF is involved. “This is a moment of unprecedented change and uncertainty, and the stakes for our foundational freedoms could not be higher. ADF isn’t just responding to these threats—it’s leading the charge,” he said. “I’ve been passionate about religious liberty, free speech, parental rights, and human dignity for a long time, and to now bring my legal and advocacy skills to bear alongside the best constitutional lawyers in the world is an extraordinary opportunity. I’m honored to join this renowned organization.” Yost’s role will involve expanding ADF’s research capability and developing “innovative approaches to advancing freedom globally.” Both ADF and Yost have highlighted the importance of fighting for conservative causes, including protecting women and girls from competing against biological males in sports. In January, Yost spoke to The Daily Signal about how Ohio could be affected by two pending Supreme Court cases on transgender athletes. Ohio Auditor Keith Faber’s name has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Yost, especially as he is the Republican nominee for attorney general. However, Jack Windsor, host of “The Windsor Report,” said on his Thursday program that Faber may want to remain in his current post to crack down on fraud concerns. Windsor said possible replacement picks might include Ohio Deputy Attorney General for Law Enforcement Carol O’Brien or Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Mary Mertz. Mertz served as first assistant attorney general during DeWine’s tenure as attorney general. A source close to the situation just told me that Gov. DeWine will not appoint Auditor Faber AG upon Yost’s exit. Instead, he expects the appointee to be either Ohio Deputy AG for Law Enforcement Carol O’Brien (left) or ODNR Director Mary Mertz (right). #Ohio #OhioNews pic.twitter.com/GKKTrKQk8f— jackwindsor (@jackwindsor) May 7, 2026 DeWine issued a statement Thursday thanking Yost for his many years of service to the state of Ohio. “I am grateful for Attorney General Yost’s long career in public service, from serving as Delaware County Auditor, Delaware County Prosecutor, Auditor of State, to Attorney General of Ohio. I wish him the best in his next endeavor,” DeWine said. “Having served as Ohio Attorney General, I know how important this office is and the great work done by its employees. I will give the appointment of someone to serve as Attorney General thoughtful and deliberate consideration.”

On May 8, 2025, a few minutes after his election, Pope Leo XIV opened his pontificate with “la pace sia con tutti voi” (peace be with you all). In many ways, these words can be understood as a kind of agenda for the Holy Father in the last year: cultivate peace and thus bolster unity within the Church. Leo’s biography can help explain much about the rhetoric and style of the current pontificate. Robert Francis Prevost was born in Chicago on Sept. 14, 1955; he entered the Order of St. Augustine, studied mathematics at Villanova, was ordained a priest in 1982, and trained in canon law. Crucially, he matured pastorally far from ecclesiastical salons, instead having much of his experience in Peru. His time in poor communities helped him develop the skills needed for the mediation of local problems, cultivating relationships with clergy and laity in the “real world.” Only after many years did the second, Roman phase of his professional trajectory begin. Pope Francis called him in 2023 to lead the Dicastery for Bishops, the office that weighs decisively on the choice of pastors across the world. A few months later, the cardinal’s scarlet arrived. Knowing this background, it is easy to see why the conclave found in him a figure capable of linking mission, law, government, and concrete knowledge of the local churches in leading the Catholic Church. Leo XIV reaches his first anniversary already having developed a recognizable lexicon, an intense agenda, a diplomatic profile, a complex relationship with U.S. (and world) politics, and an approach to artificial intelligence. The question is whether he can transform this initial coherence into a stable architecture undergirding a pontificate. Read coldly, the first year delivers a pope less spectacular than some expected and more structured than others had predicted. Its strength lies in disciplined continuity: It unites the Peruvian mission, juridical formation, curial experience, and Augustinian spirituality. From the moment he presented himself to the faithful as pope, Leo XIV has demonstrated a balanced approach to the complex figure of his predecessor. He took up the symbols of the pontifical office, starting with the red mozzetta, which Francis never wore. In the first year there was also a reshaping of the external signs. The use of the Apostolic Palace, the presence of the mozzetta in some solemn moments, and the return to Castel Gandolfo have caused discussion because they touch on the way in which the papacy makes itself visible. Read as a whole, these gestures restore to the Petrine ministry a formal framework after years in which the communicative power was concentrated above all on Francis’ personal closeness. These restorations of tradition also have practical, institutional benefits. A pope who regularly uses traditional places makes the relationship between person and office more predictable. The distinction is important because it protects the pontificate from excessive dependence on the temperament of the individual Pontiff. Leo seems to be moving precisely on this threshold: He preserves pastoral closeness while putting the public grammar of the role back in order. Francis’ pontificate was strongly marked by the personality of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Leo’s approach to his predecessor has thus far avoided a major rift on synodality, closeness to the poor, and the missionary dimension of the Church. At the same time, Leo XIV has opened doors that sometimes felt locked during the previous pontificate. He has shown himself to be more open to popular movements and the liturgical tradition. In quiet ways, he has been mending ecclesial areas that have been perceived as marginal or opposed in recent years. Crucially, Leo’s method addresses doctrinal tensions by bringing them back to a more guarded perimeter of communion. It is here that the Augustinian shows his signature: unity as daily work on fractures, beyond the ceremonial slogan. The great goal of Leo XIV’s pontificate is therefore to restore unity in the Church. The task, however, is particularly arduous. This goal has determined the speed with which the pope implemented reforms. He acts only after a long process. When considering any action, the Holy Father listens to everyone, thinks carefully, and prays at length. As a result, he has seemed to many onlookers to be slow to make decisions. But once he has made a decision, Leo has decided firmly, and he has expected his decisions to be implemented. Characterized by careful and deliberate reform, the revival of institutional symbols, and unflinching clarity of communication, Leo XIV’s pontificate is unmistakably coming into its own. The pope’s direction is “Leonine.” It’s early for final judgments, but the direction seems clear.