Virginia Democrats are facing what may be only a temporary setback in their scheme to implement hyper-partisan congressional district maps and strip the GOP of four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chief Judge Jack Hurley of Virginia’s Tazewell County Circuit Court issued an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) on Thursday halting a referendum planned for April 21.

The referendum would have asked Virginia voters to approve a constitutional amendment allowing the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to bypass the state’s constitutionally-mandated nonpartisan redistricting committee and draw its own maps for congressional districts, which are expected to reduce the number of Republican-held districts from five to one, handing Democrats 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts.

The TRO came in response to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and Reps. Ben Cline (R-Va.) and Morgan Griffith (R-Va.). Hurley had previously ruled that the planned redistricting referendum was illegal and therefore “void ab initio,” noting that the Democrats had violated General Assembly rules, bypassed legislative safeguards, and failed to adhere to a legally-required public notice period in rushing their proposed constitutional amendment through the legislature and onto the ballot.

In his TRO Thursday, Hurley wrote that Republicans have “an extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits.” He noted that the RNC, NRCC, Cline, and Griffith are likely to succeed in their arguments that the General Assembly’s Democratic majority violated constitutional timing requirements and that the proposed ballot question language is “misleading.” The ballot question asks voters to “restore fairness” to Virginia’s congressional district maps, which Hurley said “would lead a voter to believe he or she were doing something unfair by voting against the proposed amendment.” Therefore, the judge temporarily restrained Virginia Democrats from proceeding with plans or preparations for the April 21 referendum until March 18.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Caprenter explained the stakes related to the court order. “This decision out of the Tazewell County Court provides immediate relief for Republicans in the state who are staring down the possibility of a possible 10 Democrat-to-one Republican congressional map. With Virginians set to vote on the ballot initiative to draw new maps on April 21, time is of the essence.” He added, “If this temporary restraining order is allowed to stand, it could kill the redistricting effort in Virginia for this year.”

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones (D), who made headlines last year for discussing committing acts of violence against a Republican colleague and his children, pledged to immediately appeal Hurley’s TRO in a bid to allow Democrats’ hyper-partisan redistricting to go ahead. Carpenter commented, “Virginia’s newly-elected Democratic Attorney General, Jay Jones, known for his murderous instinct, vowed to kill the court’s temporary restraining order instead, rather than let the Democrats’ redistricting effort die.”

Brian Cannon, an advisor to the bipartisan No Gerrymandering Virginia organization, told TWS, “Virginia politicians are trying to rig our congressional maps through a rushed, mid-decade redistricting scheme — and they’re rigging the ballot language to mislead voters about what it really means.” He added, “We’re grateful the Tazewell County court issued an injunction to stop this unlawful process and protect fair elections.”

Another challenge brought by state Republicans against the redistricting measure had made its way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which denied the Republicans’ request for an injunction but did agree to hear the case. However, the Supreme Court scheduled initial briefs for April 23, two days after the referendum was scheduled, effectively letting the redistricting effort proceed. Responding to Democrats’ argument that the Supreme Court is already deliberating on the redistricting matter, Hurley wrote on Thursday that “this is a different case with different plaintiffs and different defendants concerning a different statute (HB 1384) and a different issue (the propriety of the referendum) than are before the Court in” the other case. The first case, brought by state Republicans, challenged House Joint Resolution 6007, which established the text of the proposed constitutional amendment, while the RNC, NRCC, Cline, and Griffith challenged House Bill 1384, implementing legislation which provides for submitting the proposed constitutional amendment to voters.

Should Hurley’s TRO be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, it will present two new issues not raised in the previous case: that of early voting and of the language of the ballot question. Under Virginia’s constitution, proposed constitutional amendments must be presented to voters no sooner than 90 days after passage in the General Assembly. Hurley noted that the redistricting referendum was approved by the legislature on January 16 and that early voting begins on March 6, only 49 days after the legislation’s passage, rendering the planned referendum incongruent with the state’s constitution.