Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES v. BETHUNE-HILL 

Opinion of the Court 

court  order  causing  legislators  to  seek  reelection  in  dis-
tricts different from those they currently represent affects 
the  House’s  representational  nature.    But  legislative 
districts change frequently—indeed, after every decennial 
census—and the Virginia Constitution resolves any confu-
sion  over  which  district  is  being  represented.    It  provides 
that  delegates  continue  to  represent  the  districts  that 
elected  them,  even  if  their  reelection  campaigns  will  be 
waged  in  different  districts.    Va.  Const.,  Art.  2,  §6  (“A 
member in office at the time that a decennial redistricting 
law  is  enacted  shall  complete  his  term  of  office  and  shall 
continue to represent the district from which he was elected 
for the duration of such term of office . . . .”).  We see little 
reason why the same would not hold true after districting 
changes  caused  by  judicial  decisions,  and we thus  foresee 
no  representational  confusion.    And  if  harms  centered  on 
costlier  or  more  difficult  election  campaigns  are  cogniza-
ble—a question that, as in Wittman, 578 U. S., at ___–___ 
(slip  op.,  at  5–6),  we  need  not  decide  today—those  harms 
would  be  suffered  by  individual  legislators  or  candidates, 
not by the House as a body. 
  In short, Virginia would rather stop than fight on.  One 
House  of  its  bicameral  legislature  cannot  alone  continue 
the litigation against the will of its partners in the legisla-
tive process. 

  * 
  For  the  reasons  stated,  we  dismiss  the  House’s  appeal 
for lack of jurisdiction. 

  * 

* 

It is so ordered.