Virginia's Gerrymander Fight, Murdaugh Retrial, and the Supreme Court’s Alabama Redistricting Reset
From Virginia’s partisan gerrymander fight to Alex Murdaugh’s retrial and the Supreme Court’s Alabama redistricting ruling, this week brought major developments in election law and criminal justice.
This week, we are diving into the desperate and likely doomed efforts by the Commonwealth of Virginia and its Democratic legislators to save an outrageously partisan gerrymandered map that was struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court. We also discuss the ruling from the South Carolina Supreme Court that Alex Murdaugh – the disgraced former attorney convicted of murdering his wife and son – will get a new trial due to a county clerk’s plot to influence the jury for her own personal gain. You can’t make this one up!
And finally, we are reviewing the Supreme Court’s rejection of a court-ordered racial gerrymandered map in Alabama, which created a second “majority-Black district.”
Image by Adobe Stock Images
Virginia Tries to Save its “Partisan Gerrymandering”
The State of Virginia has requested the United States Supreme Court put a hold on the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling that “invalidated an amendment to the Commonwealth’s Constitution that authorizes the General Assembly to adopt new congressional maps.”
In its May 8, 2026 opinion, the Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the legality of a proposed constitutional amendment – which the General Assembly of Virginia submitted to Virginia voters – that authorized “partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts in the Commonwealth.” This state constitutional amendment passed in April 2026. A divided Virginia Supreme Court held that the legislative process used to advance that proposal violated the Virginia Constitution, which “incurably” tainted and nullified the amendment. The Virginia legislature was in such a hurry to rig its voting map that it failed to follow its own required procedures.
There is a lot at stake in Virginia. If the gerrymandered map were allowed to stand, it would serve as an unprecedented seizure of power by Virginia Democrats. Currently, there are 11 U.S. House Districts in Virginia: 5 Republicans and 6 Democrats. It would change that ratio to 1 Republican and 10 Democrats. As the Virginia Supreme Court explained, the 47% of Virginians that voted for Republicans “would now be represented by 9% of Virginia’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives.” And the 51% of Virginians who voted Democrat “would now be represented by 91% of Virginia’s congressional delegation.”
The Commonwealth of Virginia and Democrat leadership from the Virginia legislature are asking the Supreme Court to leave the map as the democrats rigged it.
Among other problems with the case, Virginia’s the request for a stay of the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision seems to be the wrong relief. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s injunction. The requested stay would not reverse that injunction. Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, offers these thoughts (along with Supreme Court litigator Alan Gura):
Image by Valerie Bauerlein
South Carolina Supreme Court: Alex Murdaugh Gets a New Trial
In March 2023, former attorney Alex Murdaugh was convicted of the murders of his wife Margaret and their son Paul. Prior to the murders, Murdaugh had been living a secret life. To the public he was a partner at a prestigious plaintiff’s law firm and had a strong reputation in the local community. But in reality, he was struggling financially – to the point where he stole millions from his clients and his law firm. He also had a severe opioid addiction.
As Murdaugh was facing exposure from his financial crimes, he brutally murdered Margaret and Paul near their family home. Both were killed from close range. As the State explained in its briefing to the South Carolina Supreme Court, “those murders immediately put a stop to the gathering storm at [Murdaugh’s] doorstep.”
At trial, the evidence against Murdaugh was overwhelming. He was present at the scene that night. His phone showed an uncharacteristic “flurry of movement” around the time of the murders. He owned two guns that matched the weapons used in the murder – and these guns were never found. He deleted call records from his phone, and his story about the events of that night were inconsistent with the overall evidence. He tried to pay-off a witness to secure his alibi. And after his financial crimes were discovered by his law firm, he arranged for his own (unsuccessful) murder so that his surviving son could receive life insurance benefits.
After the trial, it was discovered that Rebecca Hill, the Colleton County Clerk, had attempted to tamper with the jury. She told the jury “not to be fooled” by the evidence presented by Murdaugh’s attorneys. She also instructed them to watch Murdaugh “closely” and to “look at his movements” during the trial – which one juror interpreted as meaning ‘he was guilty.” Hill also interrogated a juror about her ex-husband’s alleged social media posts, pestered that juror about information regarding jury deliberations, and brought to the trial court’s attention social media posts that she mistakenly believed were from the juror’s ex-husband. Her meddling helped lead to the juror’s dismissal.
And according to an alternate juror, Hill told the jury: “They’re going to say things that will try to confuse you. Don’t let them confuse you or convince you or throw you off.”
Hill’s motives were, in part, financial. One witness “testified that Hill repeatedly told her she wanted to write a book so she could buy a lake house, and a guilty verdict would be the best way to sell books.” Based on these facts, Murdaugh sought a new trial. That was denied by the trial court and the appeals court.
On Wednesday, May 13, the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered a new trial, concluding that “County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”
Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, South Carolina Supreme Court reasoned that the evidence of jury tampering created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, which shifts the burden to the government to establish that “such contact with the jurors was harmless to the defendant.” It found that the State did not meet “its heavy burden of proving there is no reasonable possibility that the verdict was affected by Hill’s comments.”
To the contrary, Hill – an officer of the court – was advising the jurors to find Murdaugh guilty and to disregard the evidence presented by his attorneys. Her conduct “to undermine the jury process is unprecedented in South Carolina.”
What happens now? The case will go back to the trial court. Assuming Murdaugh and the government cannot work out a plea deal – and there is no indication that they will – there will be another trial. However, Murdaugh is still in prison for his financial crimes.
Image by Alander Rocha
Alabama’s Redistricting Plan Gets Supreme Court Approval
Over the last five years the State of Alabama has endured extensive litigation regarding its redistricting efforts. After it passed its 2021 redistricting plan, it faced federal lawsuits that alleged the map diluted the votes of Black Americans, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and resulted in racial gerrymandering and intentional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. The 2021 plan was halted by a federal district court, which held the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim that it violated the Voting Rights Act.
After the Supreme Court upheld that order, Alabama adopted a new congressional districting plan – what we will refer to as the 2023 plan. That plan, like the 2021 plan, only had one majority-Black district. The 2023 plan was also challenged in court, and it was enjoined under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it did not appropriately place Black voters into a “majority-Black district.” The district court also held that Alabama’s “refusal to intentionally create a second majority-minority district constituted intentional racial discrimination.”
The Supreme Court has vacated that order and remanded the case to the district court “for further considerations in light of Louisiana v. Callais.” As we previously explained, in Callais, the Supreme Court held that a similar district court order that forced Louisiana create a second majority-Black district “was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
While the Supreme Court’s order concerning the Alabama redistricting is only one paragraph and does not provide specific instructions on exactly how the district court should address Callais, we expect the district court to reverse its ruling on the 2023 plan and allow it to be used in the upcoming elections.
It looks like we have finally progressed to a race-neutral common-sense approach to districting maps. Perhaps they could be drawn by AI in contiguous areas of approximately the same number of citizens in each district without regard to anything else—instead of the crazy configurations that have resulted from all the partisan gerrymandering of the last several decades!