When Hanover County resident Randi Buerlein went to vote early, she noticed a campaign display that paired a photo of Gov. Abigail Spanberger with the words “Don’t be fooled,” creating the impression the governor opposed the referendum even though she publicly supports it. That kind of mixed messaging has become common in the contentious Virginia referendum on whether the General Assembly should be allowed to adopt a new congressional map mid-decade.
The proposed map would reshape the state’s 11 U.S. House districts in a way that gives Democrats an advantage in all but one seat and could net the party as many as four additional seats. Democrats swept statewide races in 2025, but Virginia remains politically competitive, and the referendum has been tightly contested even as pro-redistricting groups have outraised and outspent opponents by a large margin.
Voters and analysts say the campaign environment has muddied the issue. Opposing groups have circulated conflicting mailers and newspaper-style publications, reused past video and audio clips, and adopted names similar enough to confuse casual readers. Those tactics have left many Virginians uncertain what a yes or no vote will actually accomplish.
High-profile footage has been repurposed on both sides. Former President Barack Obama appears in new ads urging a yes vote, while opponents have run older clips of Obama criticizing gerrymandering. Supporters of the change have highlighted recent national Republican advocacy for mid-decade map changes elsewhere, framing Virginia’s move as defensive. State officials’ past statements have been recycled too: Gov. Spanberger’s 2019 remark that “gerrymandering is detrimental to our democracy” has been used by opponents, even as she now backs the mid-decade plan.
The names of the groups leading each campaign have added to the confusion. The pro-change coalition is called Virginians for Fair Elections; the organized no campaign uses the name Virginians for Fair Maps. Ads, mailers and billboards sometimes blur those distinctions or imply endorsements that aren’t accurate. In Page County, a pro-yes billboard used an image of Donald Trump alongside a message tying the referendum to national partisan fights — a deliberate tactic to link the question to broader political debates.
Campaign managers defend their approaches. Finn Lee, campaign manager for Virginians for Fair Maps, said the opposition’s materials are meant to educate voters and blamed court rulings and ballot language for creating uncertainty. Communications experts warn, however, that the flood of mixed messaging can produce decision fatigue and lower turnout, a dynamic that tends to benefit the side with the most resources. Despite those concerns, early voting totals compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project show turnout so far roughly in line with last year’s statewide election when Spanberger was on the ballot.
Money flowing through nonprofit “social welfare” groups has played a central role. Much of the funding comes from 501(c)(4) organizations that are not required to disclose donors. According to VPAP filings, Virginians for Fair Elections has reported more than $64 million in contributions, largely channeled through groups that do not disclose backers. Major funders include the Fairness Project and House Majority Forward. The main no campaign, Virginians for Fair Maps, has reported roughly $19 million from an affiliated 501(c)(4). Another group, Justice for Democracy PAC, sent mailings that juxtaposed images of the Ku Klux Klan with warnings about silencing voters; that PAC has received nearly $10 million from Per Aspera Policy Incorporated, a 501(c)(4) whose spending spiked during the campaign.
Campaign mailers designed to resemble local newspapers have also proliferated. The Virginia Independent, a glossy free publication tied to American Independent Media, has printed recipes, lifestyle content and pieces favorable to the pro-redistricting side. Critics have labeled these items “campaign mailers masquerading as newspapers.” The publication’s editor says the outlet has published since 2021, fact-checks content and works with counsel to comply with nonprofit rules, while acknowledging an editorial viewpoint.
A significant source of frustration is the ballot question itself. It asks whether the state constitution should be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts “to restore fairness in the upcoming elections,” while asserting that the standard redistricting process would resume after the 2030 census. Republicans and some voters say the phrasing is slanted toward a yes vote. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore criticized the promise to “restore fairness” as nonneutral, and voters like Casey Czajkowski in Goochland County say the question’s tone could easily steer undecided people toward yes.
With large sums of undisclosed money, recycled and contradictory messaging, and a ballot question many voters call leading, numerous Virginians say they feel manipulated and unclear about the real consequences of their vote. The mix of tactics — from look-alike groups and faux-newspaper mailers to repurposed video clips and partisan billboards — has made it difficult for some residents to determine what a yes or no will mean for Virginia’s congressional maps.