As Virginia heads to the state Supreme Court, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones (D) will have to up his game a bit. For starters, he will have to actually defend the redistricting resolution as constitutional when prompted. In a recent interview with CNN, even the host of the friendly network expressed frustration that Jones could not seem to get himself to actually defend the dubious language of the ballot measure.
Many of us have expressed skepticism over the process and language of the resolution that passed this week, effectively wiping out all but one GOP district in the purple state.
Virginia was considered the gold standard among states rejecting gerrymandering with fairly divided districts in a state that is divided right down the middle. It then elected a governor, Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who assured voters that she was adamantly against gerrymandering and then immediately called for the most radical gerrymandered map in the nation after she was elected.
The candidate who declared that “opposing gerrymandering should be a bipartisan priority” rushed a resolution to the voters that would have made Eldridge Gerry himself blush.
That map passed by slim margin as Democrats moved to wipe out the representation of half of their neighbors, leaving Republicans with just one of eleven districts.
The problem is that the Democrats were too clever by half in crafting a campaign that even the Washington Post declared as shockingly dishonest and misleading for voters.
The deceit began with the language of the resolution itself. While Virginia law requires clarity in such resolutions, the language was obtuse and vague, declaring that it would “temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” There was nothing “temporary” about the plan which would continue for years. More importantly, it is unclear what is meant by “restore fairness” in a map that would wipe out virtually every GOP district.
In addition, the process used to rush the resolution to the ballot was abridged and unprecedented. This mess was too much for Tazewell Circuit Judge Jack Hurley who enjoined the map approved by voters. It is now awaiting an oral argument before the Virginia Supreme Court next week.
Jones was, of course, aware of all of this when he received the most predictable question from CNN host Brianna Keilar who cited the misleading elements cited by Judge Hurley and asked “does he have a point that it’s misleading?”
Jones went into an account of how the “yes side prevailed” and called Hurley “an activist judge.” Keilar reasonably followed up, noting “I know that you’re calling him an activist judge, but he is citing the Virginia Constitution and legal experts that we’ve spoken to say what he’s saying is going to create some pretty big challenges for you in court that you will have to overcome.” She then repeated the question.
Again, Jones had that deer in the headlights look and went into a babbling spin: “Well, look, I’m really proud of Virginia. I believe the right to vote is sacred, not just as Virginians, but as Americans. This is the birthplace of democracy.”
This exchange went up until, to her great credit, Keilar ended the interview with “I don’t hear you answering the substance of my question.”
The problem is that the campaign and the resolution, as the Washington Post noted, is flagrantly misleading and dishonest. Jones is betting on the majority on the Supreme Court to shrug away the problems. Democrats are also hoping that justices (who depend on their selection by the Democratic General Assembly) are unlikely to negate a Democratic vote. Indeed, it does not appear that such a vote has ever been overturned in the state.
If the Court stands with the law and throws out the vote, Democrats could face the ultimate disaster. They just spent a fortune to narrowly pass the resolution. In so doing, they alienated half of the state, who took it rather personally that Democrats were trying to wipe out virtually all of their representation in the state after recently promising never to engage in such gerrymandering.
These voters are not likely to forget this effort and virtually every Democrat in the state fought to pass this resolution. Some of these Democrats have to rely on Republican votes in the purple state to secure statewide office. They are unlikely to force this effort into some memory hole for the victims of the gerrymandering, particularly if the courts also declare that they were acting unlawfully.
Finally, the use of unlawful means to gerrymander a state only further destroys the credibility of the Democratic mantra of being defenders of the Constitution and democracy. The optics are only going to be magnified by an Attorney General who was elected by Democratic voters after threatening to kill political opponents and their children. There was no vagueness in Jones’ prior approach to political opponents. His election was viewed as the ultimate triumph of political rage by the very same voters who just effectively negated the representation of half of the state.
In the end, it will be up to the Virginia Supreme Court to “to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” There is no question that this resolution shredded state law and tradition.
The question is whether the justices themselves have the courage to demand more from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column ran on Fox.com
Since when was the founding party of Jim Crow laws, the KKK, Taney’s Dred Scott decision et al, ever for anything like democracy? They are the same hate group that continues their corrupt politics in every big U.S. city and state in the country.
Why did Stom Thurmon become a republikkkan? Trent Lott?
Thurmond was the only Dem who switched parties. And he did so despite the Republicans being the anti-segregation party, not because of it. He switched because segregation was the only reason he had been a Democrat, so when the Dems abandoned that cause he had no more reason to stay with them and came over to the party that had always been his more natural home, and that he disagreed with only on that one issue, on which both parties were now against him.
Trent Lott was never a Democrat, so I don’t know why you even mentioned him.
Isn’t it perfect in a grim way that the self described pro choice party reached for the birthplace of democracy line at the exact moment it was aborting democracy in its own house. The attorney general talked about the “sacred” right to vote while defending a scheme that misled voters, broke Virginia’s own amendment rules, and tried to lock in a 10 to 1 map in a purple state. That is not honoring the birth of democracy. That is performing an abortion on it, and doing it with a straight face while calling it choice and fairness.
OLLY,
Well said.
And they now no longer even care to outright lie to voters as to their own stances on their own platform. To them, the end justifies the means: Power.
Upstate, when I think about what you said about power, what strikes me is how little voters seem to grasp the basic rule of natural rights. The security of your rights lives or dies on how much power you keep out of government’s hands. The Founders understood that, which is why they built a constitutional structure that limits and divides power before it ever gets a chance to trample those rights. Virginia Democrats are betting that most citizens have forgotten that lesson. They talk about “sacred” voting rights while pushing a scheme that concentrates more power over representation in the very hands the Constitution was designed to restrain.
Many of the Founders were slave holders and worked the Constitution so they could remain slave holders. The ability to keep slaves is what those Founders held sacred. They clearly understood that there are no natural rights, only an agreement among those willing to inflict pain and death as to what constituted typical limitations.
Let’s just say “self-awareness” isn’t among the top 5 goals of today’s Democratic leadership, Olly.
JAFO, exactly. Perhaps self awareness means something very different to them when they do not share the principles of our founding. If you do not start from the idea that rights come first and government is created to secure them, then there is nothing to be “aware” of except how much power you can grab and hold. In that world, there is no contradiction in talking about democracy while you rig the system. There is only winning and losing.
Somehow, in this information age, where anything anyone wants to know is almost always immediately available, the voters were “misled”? However did the Conservative media fail to get the correct message out? Insufficient advertising, not enough town hall meetings? Where did this leading information get detoured?
Maybe if the Conservatives aren’t capable of managing this small task they should not be allowed to manage government.
Yes, the voters were misled. Most voters don’t bother reading up on issues before voting. They read the question presented and answer it. And who isn’t for “fairness”?
“Jones called Coyner during their text exchange and reportedly doubled down, suggesting that he wished Gilbert’s wife could watch her children die”. This was public before the election and yet Jones still got elected. He has got to be laughing his ass off and the folks that supported him have some serious mental issues. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
For most leftist voters it comes down to this comment I heard at one of the polling places from a 30-something AWFL: “I would literally vote for anything to get rid of Trump.” I have taken to sharing this search link on FB: https://www.forbes.com/health/l/best-online-therapy/?kh1=Best%20Anger%20Management%20Online%20Therapy%20Sites&account_id=150500680&network=o&device=c
Trump is the blossom of a poisonous plant that is rooted in Conservatism and fertilized with bigotry, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia. It is watered by the deprivation of the rewards for their labor of the middle and lower class by the millionaires and billionaires who siphoned away the wealth and spent it building factories in China and Asia and, now, for developing AI that is intended to gut the white collar layers of employment as automation did to the blue collar factory workers.
The demand for bigotry, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia is greater than its supply.
The hypocrisy is striking. Turley had no problem with MAGA gerrymandering. At least the D states put the redistricting up for a vote, the MAGA states did not.
They are just following CA, IL, NY, MA, NJ lead.
Yup. They keep screaming that Trump “ordered Texas…etc” conveniently ignoring the FACT that Texas was under a court order to redraw their districts and complied. Yes, they did draw in such a way as to gain 5 “republican” seats but the hoped for outcome is never guaranteed. Text obeyed the law, VA democrat/traitors broke it.
That is not what the order required and is not what allowed the Texan redistricting.
—
A federal appeals court blocked Texas’s 2025 congressional map, citing evidence of illegal racial gerrymandering in a case potentially headed to the Supreme Court. Although a lower court initially ordered a redraw, the Supreme Court in late 2025 paused this order, allowing the contested map to be used for current elections, creating a complex legal battle.
—
The redraw didn’t happen and was to prevent the map that was used from being used. The US Supreme Court conservatives did what the Federalist Society wanted – to increase the odds of a 9-0 Conservative Supreme Court.
The situation in Texas was completely different.
Liar
No she is not a liar. I was THERE in Texas when this went down. Texas was under COURT ORDER to redraw the districts. It is true that President Trump asked Governor Abbott to find 5 seats. The only important part is that Texas complied with that court order. In doing so they created 5 districts that MIGHT favor the Republicans. Keep in mind that just because the district is drawn it does NOT guarantee the hoped for results. Lots of factors weigh in. The difference here is that Texas obeyed the law while the democrat traitors in VA broke it and violated their oaths of office. One final note. That newly drawn district map was immediately challenged by the democrat traitors in Texas and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court who ruled for Texas.
Sally, perhaps we can all agree that partisan gerrymandering is bad and the more partisan it is the worse it is? If so, does raising “what about” concerns say anything about how seemingly illegal Virginia’s scheme is?
Partisan Gerrymandering is often used by the Democrats to secure representation for minority groups while Republicans use partisan Gerrymandering to eliminate representation for minority groups.
The problem isn’t being partisan, it’s using Gerrymandering to crush the minority. Since Texas and others have decided to eliminate Democrats from representation, other states will need to balance that by eliminating Republican representation in order to have any representation in Congress at all.
A fair districts constitutional amendment should be passed and ratified, saying that maps must be drawn to satisfy four politically-neutral metrics: equal population, contiguous, minimize subdivision splits, and as compact as reasonably possible. The last one – compactness – is the one that would preclude partisan gerrymanders, which always involve very weird looking districts. Some state constitutions already require this, but obviously not the Virginia constitution, and many others.
My suggestion is that anyone, not some commission, the legislature, etc., can draw district lines. The winner would be determined by the plan with the minimum of the total each district’s perimeter. There would be a penalty (say one mile) for each mile a district fails to follow a city or county line, or a natural barrier such as rivers.
In Virginia, the districts are to be drawn to be compact and centered on communities of interest. The existing map, which favors Democrats, does just that.
Rank Choice voting. Stop the gerrymandering across the board.
Ugh
Then shut up about Gerrymandering.
Preferential (“ranked choice”) voting, which I support, has nothing to do with how districts are drawn! Only after the districts are drawn does the method of voting come into it.
I totally agree with you in principle. In practice this can be very difficult in some states. I live in Nevada, a large state by area, with a relatively small population dominated by two population centers, Las Vegas/Clark County and Reno. To incorporate the “cow counties” AND to balance district populations is a tall order. I don’t say this to criticize your plan, just to say that practical implementation can be difficult, If two of the four tenets run smack into the other two, which principles rule?
Rank Choice Voting.
The fact that you think that’s relevant here tells me that you have no idea what it is.
If you understood mathematics you would know that algorithms exist that produce results meeting all four tests and can produce up to 90:10 bias out of a 50:50 population.
Possibly you do know that and are seeking a commitment that will be advantageous to conservatives with the excuse “you agreed to this” to defend the resulting heavily biased division.
“Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who assured voters that she was adamantly against gerrymandering and then immediately called for the most radical gerrymandered map in the nation after she was elected.”
Many politicians are against war, but when Texas (former member of the Confederacy) decided once again to fire the opening shot of the current war between the states, there was no option, besides disenfranchising Virginia’s Democratic voters, than to participate.
It’s an embarrassment to any law school to have a professor making this an argument this weak. Do better.
Do better? Virginia’s Democrats were never being disenfranchised. The Democrats already hold five seats, and had a crack at two more. The only people being disenfranchised, as in many other states, are Republican and rural voters. The situation in Texas is completely different.
If their Representatives cannot get a bill through Congress they are disenfranchised. It doesn’t matter that they have representatives if those representatives are prevented from participating in anything the majority refuses to consider for partisan reasons. As long as the likes of Republican Mike Johnson have sole control of when votes in the US House take place and which bills can even be considered, if the Republicans retain control not one Democrat will see any Democratic Party initiative see daylight. That’s as disenfranchised as Democratic Party voters can get.
The embarrassment is in an analogy so weak.
Yes, the right to vote IS sacred. And it is a right reserved exclusively to citizens.
That’s why we need to clean voter roles, eliminate mail in voting except in extremely limited circumstances, require ID to vote, deny ID to illegals, eliminate early voting, restrict voting to election day, stop accepting votes after the polls close, and any other measure that protects citizens and voting integrity.
Democrats, and Thune for one, are evil in their fight to NOT protect citizens’ rights. Could it be because honest elections might upset the apple cart of theft and corruption? Ancient Astronaut Theorists say YES.
It is voter -rolls- and they are clean.
Perhaps you mean – restrict voting to white males who own more than 100 acres, something like it used to be.
I suggest that being unable to spell the words in a simple argument should disqualify a voter as they are mentally unable to process enough information to make an informed decision. You and John Say would be disqualified.
This is what one can expect when an electorate chooses a wet sack of moral and ethical turpitude to uphold the law. Their moral high ground is lower than whale poohdoo and one certainly knows where that is found.
” passed by slim margin”
Similar margins are referred to by Republicans as landslide victories and overwhelming mandates, that the people have spoken and the losers are just sore losers.
In this case, call it what it is – a win. It won. It got more support and it passed and it doesn’t matter if it was by only one vote or by several percent. Be consistent and use the language of the party that makes the claim.
The original referendum to amend the VA Constitution to include the redistricting commission garnered 65%+ of the vote. Perhaps read up on the suits brought against this referendum. Here’s a summary from an NPR affiliate. https://www.vpm.org/elections/2026-04-22/tazewell-vrc-scott-redistricting-gerrymandering-lawsuits-faq-explainer
I was pointing out that Turley was making a misrepresentation and that even if it was by 1 vote, it wins.
I think ” in a map that would whip put virtually every GOP district” should be ” in a map that would wipe out virtually every GOP district”. Fire your editor.
“whip put”, whip put Good!
A minor correction – Virginia Justices do not face the voters. All judges in Virginia are elected by the Legislature. SCOVA has 12 yr terms, all other judges 8.
Correct. Was just looking this up yesterday.
Some of the most powerful security/intel federal agencies on Planet Earth reside in the jurisdiction of the Virginia Attorney General.
This is intended for future reforms, not to punish government personnel. Virginia may run the largest false imprisonment program in the United States.
Certain Virginia citizens are denied all constitutional due process – the federal government decides where they can work, if they are allowed to earn an income (and how much). The government is totalitarian.
It’s actually pretty easy to impose totalitarianism in the computer and internet age. Congress seems uninterested in the most evil program on Planet Earth that they are duty bound to constitutionalize.
According to news accounts, communist regimes Shanghai their own citizens but at least those despotic regimes notify their victims. Virginia does this same evil (hopefully on a smaller scale) covertly. No person is safe from this genuine tyranny.
Any security/intel official swore an Oath of Office to NOT deny constitutional due process to any (not even one) American. Prisoners convicted in a court in law have more rights than some Virginia citizens shanghaid by the federal government.
Maybe covert shadow government is necessary in rare instances. If such a secret system were necessary it still needs to comply with the Oath of Office under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
The Virginia Attorney General swore an Oath of Office to protect these citizens, providing checks & balances on disloyal federal officials participating in false imprisonment schemes. The Virginia AG could file a Writ of Mandamus today against the FBI and other agencies operating in Virginia.
What the actual HELL are you talking about? Are you on drugs?
Watch as Mr. X, George, comes along and says that the egregious language was actually fair, that the ignoring of state law regarding the vote is immaterial and having a purple state going 10-1 in Representatives is fairness.
HullBobby,
Why? His comments are nothing but cut and past from a AI bot that forms his opinion. Not worth reading. Just scroll past.
So, why can’t Jay Jones defend the measure? Because he doesn’t know the law, a problem common to activist lawyers. Heck, I don’t know the law either, but I asked Gemini. It gave reasonable answers. At least he could have done that. CNN anchors accept anything.
Lucky that Old Jonesy did not use his GO TO dog whistle of RACISM and WHITE SUPREMACY to berate the Good Ole Boy Justice system in Virginia. But just wait there is always the Appeals Court where Jonesy will play that card!!
Excellent analysis!
It is an his opinion. Others will have a different opinion. And no one will be accurate.
Democrats lie, cheat and steal their way to power, every time, all the time. They are traitors in the exact sense of the word. They all swore, or affirmed, that they would support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That means ALL of both of them, not just the parts they happen to like. Each and every democrat took tat oath. They lied when they spoke the words and they all deserve the traitor’s fate for having done so.
All the time you say? Okay, state 10 alleged steals. No wait, make it 3 steals. Wait, wait, just 1.
CA, IL, NY, OR, WA, VA Chicago, NYC, just to name the most obvious ones. Any more stupid questions?
MICHAEL A CROGNALE,
Great comment!! Even better response!!
Six states in New England and not even ONE Republican Representative. How’s that? Only a non-lawyer lightweight would ask a question without knowing what the answer might be.
Death to MAGA!
So, you would Never like to see a Great America again? Perhaps you prefer a different Superpower (Russia or China? Are there any others? Maybe the EU, but I’m not sure they count.) Or you might just prefer that America was knocked down a few pegs. Or…
Maybe you think things were better before Trump was elected again. If so, you believe America was greater before Trump was President and you’d like to see it return to that state. Thus you would like to see America made great again? MAGA?
Did you think that up?
It violates the language requirements for ballot measures which explicitly says language must be neutral. The working is biased to produce and answer of yea. This is also a basic tenant of survey design and statistics. Language must not be leading for valid results. That doesn’t even consider the procedural failures under the VA Constitution.
Funny how commenters here think they’re constitutional lawyers.
Then why didn’t you stop the process knowing what you think you know?
“Then why didn’t you stop the process knowing what you think you know?”
Huh? How were any of the commenters supposed to do this?
You need to become more informed. The courts put it on hold until the vote had been made. If the result was no the case became moot. If the result was yes, standing was established. Note: the language violation was no a VA Constitutional issue. The violation of procedure was a VA Constitutional issue.