Virginia redistricting a lesson in civics, federalism

Virginia’s Supreme Court made some important national news last week.  They did it by affirming a lower court’s ruling on clearly written law. The process by which Virginia Democrats attempted to redraw their Congressional maps violated their state laws and Constitution. 

The only real surprise here is that the Justices of Virginia’s Supreme Court didn’t bow to extreme political pressure and invent a loophole to reinterpret words. A lower court spelled it out clearly.

Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley found numerous problems with the legality of the referendum itself. The authorization for the vote was illegal based on a late inclusion to a special session of the Virginia legislature, which is not allowed. The timing of the vote itself is against Virginia’s Constitution because there hasn’t been an ensuing general election of the House of Delegates, so that the earliest this vote could legally happen after a legal passage would be 2027. 

The language of the question imposed to voters was ruled “flagrantly misleading”. Legislators also violated the law by issuing the vote less than 90 days after passage. The legislature then again overstepped by mandating election procedures and locations that are beyond the powers given them under Virginia’s constitution.

That’s a lot of legalese.  When dealing with the foundations of our Republic, legalese is important. 

So why was the vote even allowed to happen?  Because those pushing to ram the changes through cited law and precedent saying the court couldn’t intervene until the election was over.

This, too, was a raw political calculation. It, too, failed.

The Supreme Court directly answered this criticism, knowing it would be a talking point to foment anger for the losing side. The opinion noted that they had already sided with those wanting the maps redrawn that they could not rule prior to the vote. With those same people now arguing that the court can’t or shouldn’t rule after a vote, they were effectively saying the Supreme Court can’t rule on the legality of a constitutional amendment at all.  

Lost to those claiming this ruling subverts the will of the majority and thus undermines democracy is that there was another vote for a constitutional amendment just six years ago regarding redistricting.  That ballot question, posed through a legal process with a fair ballot question, indicated that roughly two thirds of Virginians favored and enshrined into law an independent redistricting commission.  

Now, the people who demand the will of the people be followed will only point to the razor thin margin of an illegally held snap vote. They want everyone to completely ignore an opposite opinion of voters who changed Virginia’s constitution via an open and legal process.

It’s getting harder and harder to take seriously the loyal opposition party who looks at a duly elected President who also won the popular vote and has a quarterly “No Kings” rally. The mantra is that they wish us to “return to norms” by ignoring both Constitution and law. 

When Republicans object, they’re told their words are violence.  Meanwhile, Virginia’s new Attorney General has a series of text messages saying he wanted to kill the children of his former Speaker of the opposing party because “only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.”  

Virginia’s new Governor Spamberger stood by him despite his violent texts. She also told voters she didn’t favor a mid-cycle redistricting. One that she ultimately flip flopped on as soon as she had power.  Because of “fairness”.

Georgia isn’t Virginia. This piece, however, ties two of my last columns together.

Georgia is in the early voting period of an election that ends May 19^th. This voting was already underway when a separate court ruling set off a wave of Southern states redrawing maps that will likely add more Republican seats.

Each state has their own Constitution and laws. Each has separate elections. It’s not clear that Georgia has the legal standing or process, nor that voters have the political appetite, to force new maps for the 2026 election. Each state must stand on its own laws when deciphering guidance from the Supreme Court.

We are also electing Justices for our Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.  There is significant overlap from national Democrats and their donors seeking to oust Justices and Judges who have bipartisan support and have pledged fair interpretations of Georgia’s laws. 

The challengers are walking the line of judicial code by promising pre-determined outcomes. They are hiding behind ads paid for by third parties, but the clear intention is to politicize our courts.

Virginia’s courts stuck by the law. The result is that no less than the New York Times is helping float the trial balloon that Virginians in a power grab may force every State Supreme Court Justice to retire and be replaced by political plants. 

These are not the norms we’re looking for.  We have two political branches of government. It is imperative that Georgians re-elect our incumbent judges and reject attempts to have a third partisan branch of government.