When Randi Buerlein arrived to vote early in Hanover County, she said the materials at her polling place made the choice look flipped. A poster showed Gov. Abigail Spanberger with the words “Don’t be fooled,” even though Spanberger has urged a yes vote. “She’s on TV every day saying, ‘Vote yes,’” Buerlein said. “But they’re making it look like she’s saying, ‘Vote no.’”
Virginia’s referendum on redrawing its congressional map has become a high-stakes, messy campaign that many voters say is hard to follow. The proposal would redraw the state’s 11 congressional districts in a way that could give Democrats an edge in all but one seat and might net Democrats as many as four U.S. House seats. Despite Democrats’ strong showing in the 2025 governor’s race, the state remains competitive and the referendum has attracted heavy spending on both sides.
Voters and experts say the information environment has been muddled by a mix of conflicting mail, newspaper-style mailers, similar group names and leading ballot language. The pro-change committee goes by Virginians for Fair Elections; the main opposition is Virginians for Fair Maps. That near-identical naming has added to confusion about who is advocating what.
Advertising has recycled national figures and mixed messages. Former President Barack Obama appears in new ads urging a yes vote, while the no side ran a spot using a 2017 clip of Obama criticizing gerrymandering. A mailer from the Justice for Democracy PAC, connected to the no campaign, juxtaposed images of the Ku Klux Klan with the line “They want to silence your voice,” prompting pushback. In turn, the campaign manager for Virginians for Fair Maps blamed confusion on “defying court orders, misleading ballot language and the hypocrisy of politicians,” saying its ads are meant to educate voters.
Gov. Spanberger, who previously said gerrymandering harms democracy, is backing a mid-decade map change that would favor Democrats. National imagery has been pressed into local messages: a Democratic committee paid for a Page County billboard featuring an image of former President Donald Trump and the line, “President Trump says, ‘Take over the voting,’ Vote yes on redistricting April 21.”
Communications experts warn the barrage of mixed messages can produce decision fatigue and depress turnout, benefiting the side with better resources. J. Andrew Kuypers, a communications consultant and Virginia Tech professor, said such tactics often favor better-funded campaigns with strong turnout operations. Still, early voting this cycle is close to last year’s statewide early totals, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
Dark money has been a major factor. Much of the spending comes from 501(c)(4) groups that don’t disclose donors, making it hard for voters to trace who is financing the campaigns. Justice for Democracy PAC received just under $10 million from Per Aspera Policy Incorporated, a 501(c)(4) whose spending rose sharply during the campaign. The pro-redistricting committee Virginians for Fair Elections has collected more than $64 million, largely from non-disclosing organizations; two named funders include The Fairness Project and House Majority Forward, a nonprofit tied to U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The main no committee, also called Virginians for Fair Maps, has reported about $19 million in six donations from its own 501(c)(4) with the same name.
Mailers designed to look like newspapers have further complicated voters’ ability to assess the debate. Free election-related publications from the Virginia Independent, part of the American Independent Media network and produced by a 501(c)(4), have mixed lifestyle pieces with coverage favorable to the pro-redistricting campaign. Conservative critics called the mailings “campaign mailers masquerading as ‘newspapers,’” while the Virginia Independent’s editor, Joe Conason, said the outlet has published online since 2021, vets stories legally, and aims to inform readers. The organization’s disclosures show board members with ties to left-leaning groups.
The ballot question itself has drawn criticism for tone and clarity. It reads in part: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”
“Promising to ‘restore fairness’ is not neutral framing,” Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore said. Voters echoed that sentiment: Casey Czajkowski of Goochland County said the wording is misleading and likely to push people toward a yes vote just by reading it.
With large sums pouring in, opaque funding sources and a torrent of competing messages, many Virginians say they remain uncertain about the real effect of a yes or no vote. That uncertainty is shaping how some approach the referendum — and fueling concerns that confusion, not clear information, could determine the outcome.