Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled Democrats’ power grab unconstitutional. This is a necessary correction.
This whole gerrymandering referendum was all political gamesmanship at its worst. Instead of allowing each congressional district, already drawn by a redistricting committee, to vote for their representative, Virginia Democrats created a game where only Northern Virginia needs to decide the congressional representatives of the entire commonwealth. They call it democracy. The Supreme Court calls it unconstitutional.
From today’s opinion-
“In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia. This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void. For this reason, the congressional district maps issued by this Court in 2021 pursuant to Article II, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia remain the governing maps for the upcoming 2026 congressional elections.”
The case hinged on the “intervening-election” issue. Democrats claimed that their marathon long Special Session, which was originally called to tie-down the budget, could extend into the next year when something as big as a constitutional amendment could be proposed. That argument fails. The constitution “slow-walks the constitutional-amendment process.” This is important. A constitutional amendment is a big deal and it is meant to last. Legislatures are not supposed to fast-track or ram through the deliberative process.
Democrats in the General Assembly didn’t release their amendment until four days until election day in 2025, and without any maps. That gave Virginia voters, according to Democrats, four days to consider the first part of the drawn-out constitutional-amendment process. It also ignored the voters who already cast their ballot. During oral arguments for this case, Democrats argued that early voters assumed the risk of a constitutional amendment and that is no different from assuming the risk of an October Surprise in the likes of a DUI, a preposterous position. There needs to be as little risk involved as possible when considering a vote on something as big as a constitutional amendment.
The definitions of “election” and “election day” are important. Democrats broke from their previous positions describing early voting. They tried to argue that the election is election day. If that were the case, then all the rules around early voting wouldn’t apply. The opinion offers an odd hypothetical about the confusion that comes from a voter who is participating early, but there’s no election yet to participate in. The opinion painstakingly details the election as the process, not just one day.
Democrats are complaining that the will of the voters is being overturned. That is a disingenuous argument. The courts are the place for remedies and this opinion even cites Marbury v. Madison to defend its judicial review power. The problem is timing. I would’ve preferred this opinion before the voting began, but the opinion explains that the courts can’t act until the entire process plays out. Therefore, this case could only be heard after the vote. That is frustrating, but that’s the law. As the for outcome, the opinion explains; “On the issues before us in this case, we hold that the ultimate vote margin plays no role in the analytics of our judicial review of the constitutionality of the pre-election constitutional-amendment process.” An unconstitutional referendum doesn’t become constitutional if the voters pass it or not. And in this case, the process was unconstitutional and therefore the vote doesn’t count.
But the money counts. And count it up. I’ve seen spending estimates by Democrats at around $70 million and another at $83 million on this referendum. That’s a lot of real money that could’ve been used by national Democrats in specific races to win back the House majority. Now, that money is gone and those same donors will have to pony up more. Ouch. Hey, six to five in favor of Democrats ain’t so bad and it is far more reflective of Virginia’s electorate.
Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia’s 6th District (and it’s going to stay the 6th) released this statement-
“This is the correct decision, and it was always going to end up this way. Democrats broke laws that they helped write in the first place, blew through deadlines, wrote a biased and misleading ballot question, and lied to the voters in all of their advertising to support the referendum. The voters of Virginia banned gerrymandering six years ago, and that ban remains in effect today. This is a great day for fair elections and the rule of law, and it’s a great day for the Commonwealth of Virginia.”
Jefferson Forum said, in part, “The Court repeatedly emphasized the very concerns Jefferson Forum raised publicly throughout the referendum fight: that the process was rushed, constitutionally defective, misleading to voters, and designed to circumvent the anti-gerrymandering reforms Virginians overwhelmingly adopted in 2020.”
Governor Abigali Spanberger’s statement said, “I am disappointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s ruling, but my focus as Governor will be on ensuring that all voters have the information necessary to make their voices heard this November in the midterm elections because in those elections we — the voters — will have the final say.”
State Senator Louise Lucas’s promise of “ten fucking one” fails on constitutional grounds. Lucas released a statement saying, “Today’s actions by Federal agents are about…” Oops. That was something else. Wow, she’s having a bad week.
This ram-job by its nature is unconstitutional. Glad to see Virginia’s Supreme Court defend Virginia’s Constitution.