The Virginia Senate on Oct. 31 voted 21-16 to approve House Joint Resolution 6007, a proposed constitutional amendment that would authorize the General Assembly to modify one or more congressional districts between decennial reapportionments in narrowly specified circumstances.

Supporters, led on the floor by Senator Rouse, the junior senator from Virginia Beach and chair of Privileges and Elections, described the resolution as a narrowly drawn option that would be presented to voters by referendum. "I move that the house joint resolution HJ 6007 be agreed to," Rouse said on the Senate floor when making the motion to adopt the resolution. Proponents argued the measure is a limited response to what they described as an unprecedented wave of mid‑decade map changes in other states that could materially affect Virginia’s representation in Congress.

Opponents said the resolution undermines the redistricting reforms voters approved in 2020 and violates the purpose of the intervening–election safeguard. Senator Obenshein of Rockingham pointed to the margin by which Virginians approved the 2020 constitutional change, noting "66% of Virginia's voters voted for this constitutional amendment," and argued that the Senate should not reverse that reform midstream. Several senators pressed procedural and constitutional concerns, noting that early voting in the current election began Sept. 19 and that more than one million Virginians had already cast ballots before the first passage of this resolution was made public.

The debate included a separate vote on a block floor amendment offered by Senator Head of Botetourt that would have redirected authority back to the redistricting commission; that amendment was defeated on a recorded vote (16 in favor, 21 opposed). The Senate then voted on the resolution itself after extended debate on the scope of the authority it would grant and the appropriate timing for such a constitutional change.

Clerk announcements and recorded roll calls show the final tally on HJ 6007 was "Ayes 21, Noes 16;" the clerk declared the resolution agreed to and it will proceed in the constitutional amendment process laid out in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. That process requires a second passage by the General Assembly after an intervening election and then a statewide referendum.

Senators' floor remarks spanned constitutional history, practical consequences for representation, and national political context. Supporters said the change is a limited "break‑glass" option in response to partisan mid‑decade redistricting elsewhere; opponents called it a partisan power grab and said it violated long‑standing constitutional safeguards. The session also featured extended colloquy over whether publication and timing requirements in state law and practice were being honored.

The Senate also heard several points of personal privilege unrelated to HJ 6007, including an extended personal account about domestic violence awareness month and remarks about political violence and religious tolerance. The Senate recessed at the end of the day under a motion to reconvene with at least 48 hours' notice from the chair of the Rules Committee.

What happened next: under Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution, the constitutional amendment process requires a second passage after an intervening general election and then submission to voters. The Senate’s approval on Oct. 31 constitutes the first passage in this chamber.

Votes at a glance

- Head floor amendments (block of 3): defeated, recorded vote 16 in favor, 21 opposed.
- House Joint Resolution 6007 (proposed constitutional amendment authorizing limited mid‑decade congressional redistricting under specified conditions): agreed to, recorded vote Ayes 21, Noes 16.

Key context and clarifications

- The resolution does not immediately redraw any districts; it proposes to amend the state constitution to give the legislature authority to modify congressional districts in a limited set of circumstances and only after the constitutional amendment process completes.
- Senators repeatedly discussed the "intervening election" requirement in Article XII, Section 1, and whether the prevailing early‑voting schedule (which began Sept. 19, 2025) affected the intent and fairness of that safeguard.
- Several senators emphasized that, even if the General Assembly later adopted changes under this resolution, any final map would remain subject to judicial review under federal law, including the Voting Rights Act.

Provenance (selected transcript evidence)

- HJ 6007 first read to the floor (clerk): "6,007, presenting an amendment to section 6 of article 11 of the constitution of Virginia ..." (Transcript start time 00:11:19).
- Floor amendment block introduced by Senator Head: "Amendment number 1." (Transcript start time 00:12:21).
- Senator Obenshein on voter approval margin: "66% of Virginia's voters, voted for this constitutional amendment." (Transcript start time 00:17:38).
- Recorded vote on the head amendment block: "16, nos 21. The head amendment number 1 fails." (Transcript start time 01:11:59).
- Final recorded vote on HJ 6007: "Ayes 21. Noes 16. The resolution is agreed to." (Transcript start time 02:56:59).

Ending note: The measure now advances in the multi‑step constitutional amendment process. If the General Assembly passes the same language again after the intervening election, the question will appear on a future statewide ballot for voters to decide whether to add the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Virginia.