The Senate Privileges and Elections Committee reported House Joint Resolution 6007 to the floor on a party‑line, 8‑6 vote after more than an hour of questioning and public testimony.

Delegate Willett, the resolution’s patron, told the committee the measure creates "a narrow temporary exception allowing the Virginia General Assembly to modify 1 or more congressional districts between the regular, 10 year or decennial reapportionments" if another state withdraws congressional districts middecade for reasons other than completing a court‑ordered redistricting. "It lets the voters decide, whether there's more redistricting or not," Willett said, stressing the measure itself would not draw lines and would expire in 2030.

Supporters said the amendment preserves a path for voters to respond to what they called unprecedented federal pressure and actions in other states. Tram Nguyen of New Virginia Majority said the constitutional amendment process "ultimately" leaves the decision to voters and noted that existing statutory redistricting criteria would still apply if maps were later drawn. Todd Gacki of the Family Foundation opposed the resolution on procedural grounds, saying the one‑day public notice and timing of the hearing denied adequate opportunity for public review.

Committee members spent most of the hearing asking the patron to clarify limits and process. Willett repeatedly emphasized that the resolution "is temporary and expires in 2030," that it "does not require redistricting," and that it "is not in any way eliminating the Virginia Redistricting Commission." The patron also said enabling legislation in a later session would determine the mechanics, including fiscal responsibilities.

Opponents raised three central objections: timing, precedent and process. Senator Durant argued the measure was presented while more than a million Virginians had already cast ballots and asked how those votes were protected; Durant said, "I think a million Virginia's deserve to have an understanding of the situation." Senator Cypress called the idea of triggering state legislative authority based on another state's actions "a dangerous escalation" and criticized limited notice and transparency.

Members also asked legal and fiscal questions. Committee discussion referenced the Constitution of Virginia and code sections cited during the hearing (including §30‑13 and §30‑19) and noted that a lawsuit filed the prior day seeking injunctive relief had been considered that morning; a committee member reported the petition for temporary relief was denied. Fiscal impact statements for any future enabling legislation were not available; the patron said fiscal analysis would come later if the amendment proceeds.

Public commenters voiced both support and opposition. Supporters — including New Virginia Majority, the Virginia League of Conservation Voters and Freedom Virginia — said the amendment preserves voter choice and protects democratic institutions. Opposition voices, including a representative of the Gloucester County Young Republicans and the Family Foundation, said the committee had not given the public reasonable time to review the resolution and warned the move could enable partisan mapmaking.

After final remarks from Delegate Willett and committee members, Senator Deeds moved to report HJ6007 from the Privileges and Elections Committee. The committee recorded an 8‑6 roll‑call vote to report the resolution to the Senate floor. The chair announced, "HJ6007 reports 8 6 from the Privileges and Elections Committee," and adjourned the hearing.

The resolution as considered by the committee does not itself change district lines; if it advances, the amendment would require a referendum before any redistricting action could take effect.

Details that were not specified at the hearing include the precise fiscal costs of a referendum or any future special election, the exact enabling legislative language that would implement the change if voters approve it, and individual roll‑call votes (the committee announced only the tally).