The Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday in Scott v. McDougle, a case initially brought before Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. that could determine whether Old Dominion ultimately adopts a gerrymandered map that would all but guarantee that 10 out of the state's 11 congressional seats go to Democrats in the upcoming midterm election.On April 21, Virginia voters passed the redistricting referendum, but the next day, Hurley blocked certification of the result, ruffling the feathers of Democrats who eagerly want to see the result certified.Hurley ruled in January that the constitutional amendment that ended up on the April 21 ballot was unlawful. He then declared on April 22 in a related case about the constitutional amendment — Koski v. Republican National Committee — that:the Virginia General Assembly illegitimately usurped the powers of the Virginia Redistricting Commission; the legislation that prompted the special election for the amendment violated the submission, timing, and form of laws clauses of the Virginia Constitution; and"any and all votes for or against the proposed constitutional amendment in the April 21, 2026, special election are ineffective."The judge granted the Republican plaintiffs in the Koski case a permanent injunction against certification, noting that they "will be irreparably harmed absent permanent injunctive relief because of the numerous violations of the constitutional amendment process and because Congressmen [Ben] Cline and [Morgan] Griffith would be irreparably harmed by their districts changing at this juncture."On April 24, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones (D) filed a motion for an emergency stay of Hurley's order in the Koski case.The Virginia Supreme Court delivered Jones and other Democrats bad news on Tuesday, denying them their coveted emergency stay.RELATED: Virginia Supreme Court seems skeptical about Democratic gerrymandering Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesFormer Republican Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli said in response to the court's rejection of the Democratic motion that "in the 'tea leaves' category, this is as positive a 'tea leaf' as one might imagine" with regard to the Scott case.Cuccinelli said that if the Virginia Supreme Court "thought they would let the referendum stand, then logically they would have lifted the injunction on counting & certifying the votes."Virginia Del. Wren Williams (R) wrote, "The same Supreme Court that allowed the referendum to go forward in March, so voters could be heard, has now declined to override a final judgment finding the constitutional amendment process defective. Strong signal that process matters in Virginia."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!