On January 25, a U.S. District Court heard oral arguments in Lux v Judd, the case over Virginia’s law that makes it illegal for petitioners to circulate a U.S. House candidate’s petition if the circulator lives outside the district. The state argued that in the period since this case was filed, it finally decided to check the plaintiff-candidate’s petition (earlier, the state had refused to check the signatures). The candidate needed 1,000 signatures, and the state said it had determined that his petition only has 943 valid signatures. Therefore, the state argued that the candidate doesn’t have standing and the lawsuit should be dismissed without a ruling on the merits of the law.

The judge ruled from the bench that the candidate-plaintiff does have standing to challenge the law, and gave the state an opportunity to file a supplemental brief explaining why the law is needed. At the oral argument, the state said the law is needed to prevent fraud, and said it will flesh out this argument in its supplemental brief.