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 have to face the voters themselves are unlikely to negate a popular 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.”
The VA Supreme Court (SC) will not overturn the decision, siding with the mantra “the will of the people”.
True, the will of the people in Virginia was to forbid the marrying of blacks to whites, which the VA SC supported.
True, the will of the people in Virginia supported forced sterilization of Carrie Buck, and other women, which the VA SC also supported.
Plus the Justices on the VA SC are re-elected by the VA Assembly every 12 years, the length of their term. Some of them depend on the current VA Assembly, controlled by Dems, to re-elect them for another 12 years.
Some are surprised VA Attorney General Jay Jones hasn’t threatened to kill the Justices. But there still is time
He’s still checking out to see if he can knock off their kids first…
Why just the kids? He wants to kill whole families because they lean slightly conservative.
As long as there’s life, there’s time. JJ has two bullets, which might not suffice.
The three constitutional amendments we need:
– The Keep-9 amendment – keep Scotus at 9 justices
– The Fair Districts amendment – districts must be drawn to optimize politically neutral metrics (compact, contiguous, equal-population, and minimize political subdivision splits)
– The Tax Uniformity amendment – the effective rate of taxation on a thing cannot depend on the quantity of the thing being taxed
Perhaps there is a fourth.
As to your 2nd which is essentially the gerrymandering complaint, this feature of American representative democracy has been in evidence more than two hundred years. If there are only two parties, the majority party will seek to spread its majority equally so as to have the best chance to win every seat. Meanwhile the minority party will seek to concentrate its voters such that it can win bare majorities in as many districts as possible. With more than two parties it’s much more complicated so it’s very difficult to quantify an optimal solution which is most fair.
If you start to imagine geographical methods of drawing districts (such as “contiguous”), then you’ll have to account for places like Long Island, Michigan, and Hawaii. There isn’t an easy & obvious federal solution to gerrymandering.
And the answer is:
Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
How about an amendment that prohibits mid decade redistricting?
Even if such an amendment were adopted, its effectiveness would be limited. Every 10 years states would still be able to gerrymander. OTOH, if district lines are required to be drawn fairly, without favor to any political party, the incentive to redistrict mid-decade would go away.
The lengths to which Turley will go to find fault with Democrats, while ignoring egregious MAGA gerrymandering, is nothing short of amazing. In Texas, the citizens DID NOT have the opportunity to vote on whether to create new districts following Trump’s command to help him rig the midterms by trying to create more Republican districts. The TEXAS LEGISLATURE did this. From “Wikipedia”:
“On August 20, 2025, the Texas State House passed congressional maps that would target five Democratic-held seats, all of them being Coalition Districts consisting of majorly minority populations.[2] The vote was 88–52, a party-line vote. The Congressional map targets Marc Veasey, Greg Casar, Lloyd Doggett, Julie Johnson, and Al Green.[3] On August 23, 2025, the Texas State Senate passed the map with a vote 18–8. It then headed to governor Greg Abbott,[4] who officially signed the new congressional map into law on August 29, 2025.[5]”
In Virginia, it was the VOTERS who voted to redistrict–and, this was in response to what the Texas Legislature did. AND, it is temporary–it applies only until the 2030 new census information is compiled. Of course, Republicans IMMEDIATELY got some MAGA judge to issue an injunction, which is not likely to stand. So, according to Turley, gerrymandering is OK if Republicans do it–even when it is done without input of the citizens, but not if Democrats do it. Republicans changed the rules of the game because Trump and Republicans stand to lose bigly in November. Once the ground rules were changed, Democrats had no choice other than to fight back.
Nice buzzword factory. No wonder you’re anonymous.
I always quit reading at what about. About is irrelevant to the article.
TX was a response to decades of Dem gerrymandering. I cite New England and CA.
Texas was a response to the Supreme Court saying Texas couldn’t draw racist districts that favored one race, i.e. blacks.
No it wasn’t. Texas created new districts because Trump commanded them to do it.
(1) Virginia’s redistricting vote was NOT “in response to what the Texas Legislature.” Totally false. Immediately after Texas, Newsom chidishly did the same thing in CALIFORNIA, almost neutralizing the effect of Texas. Virginia’s move is not retaliatory, but rather game-playing to establish a lead. But then, there’s Florida.
(2) “In Virginia, it was the VOTERS…”
If you had paid attention, you would see that the legal challenge before the VA Supreme Court is not over Virginia’s right to redistrict. It is over the misleading and dishonest language on the ballot.
Try to pay attention.
Most people are simply incapable of checking the laws. The ballot measure violated VA law on neutral language. It was worded to bias the respondents to say yes. This is basic in survey design and survey statistics. They also instructed that the new map not be available at polling locations. Top it all off with the state removing redistricting from the legislature and putting it under a bipartisan committee which received over 65% of the vote, and you can see that this was illegal from the start without even considering the VA Constitutional issues.
Trump and MAGA say that the wording is problematic. The voters didn’t have a problem with it–this is just a BS argument. MAGA spent millions trying to defeat the measure, and MAGA media went into a frenzy when it passed. In MAGA world, whenever Democrats win, it’s rigged or wrong. Not so when Republicans win or, as in Texas, the citizens didn’t get a chance to vote.
In tx 24 of 38 reps re republicans – TX voted 56:42 Republican in 2024.
TX is only sightly off.
VA voted 51:46 democrats in 2024
VA is radically off.
In 2026 51% of VA voters voted to disenfranchise all other voters.
We could all stand still to do so. There is no need to stretch or reach.
MAGA Trump, MAGA Trump the record is broken. LOL
TX responded to SCOTUS ending forced racial gerrymandering
But if tc voters are offended they get to vote in November
Regardless the tax legislature did not run afoul of the tax constitution
Va did
Why should we have laws and constitutions if they are not followed
I have no expertise on either the tax or va constitutions
But citizens of those states should expect them
To be followed
More generally beyond enforcing their respective constitutions the courts should stay out of this
Tx and value voters will get to express their views in November
The Gerry meandering tax is doing is politically dangerous that if va is near suicide
Gerrymandering is a self punishing act
Creating more seats for your party when you have a narrow majority has the high risk of losing nearly everything with small shifts in the wind
Let voters accept or reject this in November
JS – gerrymandering is a common practice because it is effective. It is also done in a very sophisticated way, as computers can crank out literally hundreds of thousands of possible maps and run many election simulations on them in a very short time.
Scotus has said partisan gerrymanders are non-justiciable as a matter of federal law. Fine. Now it’s up to each state to decide whether their state laws – including their state constitutions – prohibit it.
My favored solution, which I have expressed today, is for a federal constitutional fair-districts amendment. Why? Because partisan gerrymandering serves no socially useful purpose, and the parties battle it out to rough parity every time they get a chance, all of which wastes tons of money and erodes public confidence in the electoral system.
OMFK
There are tw forms of gerrymndering – they are essentially oposites.
In one you assure that specific reps get “safe seats” The more of that you do the closer the remaining districts become.
The other is to try to leverage a small majority in the electorate into a larger majority of districts.
The nation as a whole slightly favors republicans in congress specifically because democrats concentrate heavily in cities.
They have essentially self gerrymandered.
Maximimizing the number of districts that you have a majority in requires diminishing the size of that majority.
VA is a 3pt state.
The VA legislature gerrymandered a 9:1 allocation of house seats. That means a 3pt swing in the electorate would result in VA going 10:0 republican.
There is no good reason for the courts or law to interfere with Gerrymandering – if in VA as little as 3% of the electorate is angry about it – democrats will be obliterated.
Leave this to voters. 3pts swings are not uncommon.
Gerrymandering to create secure seats is effective – but it comes at the expense of the parties majority.
Gerrymndering – whether by republicans of democrats to create a majority greater than they naturally have is extremely dangerous.
Those who play with fire often get burned.
Gerrymandering to get a larger than natural majority is NOT effective – it si dangerous.
Yes there are tools to allow you to create gerrymndered district – though honestly, it does not take great skill.
And the tools do NOT change the fact that 1/3 of the electorate are “swing voters”
You can not gerrymander your way arround that.
Gerrymndering with sophistiction and computers and other tools does not change the fact that elections are decided by voters.
and 3pct swings are not uncommon, rven most polls have about a 3pct margin for error and still get things wrong all the time.
Do you really think that sophisticated tools and computers are better than polsters at predicting voting ?
Gerrymandering is an attempt to rig an election by perfectly guessing what the vote will be months – often years in advance.
Can it be done – sure. Is it extremely dangerous – absolutely.
you write about maps and similuations – but again – if voters were so predictable.manipulable – you would not need to gerrymander.
The FACT that they are not, means that Gerrymandering is playing with Ouija boards.
“Scotus has said partisan gerrymanders are non-justiciable as a matter of federal law. Fine.”
And they did so for very good reason. It is a HUGE mistke to draw the courts into what are political matters.
it is a mistake for federal courts. It si mistake for state courts.
“Now it’s up to each state to decide whether their state laws – including their state constitutions – prohibit it.”
The VA supreme court is going to have to act based on the VA constitution.
But I hope that like the US constitution – it leaves politics to politiicians – not courts.
WE do not want courts to be answering political questions.
“My favored solution, which I have expressed today, is for a federal constitutional fair-districts amendment.”
Not possible. There is absolutely no such thing as “fair” you are playing into the lefts hands.
Never use what are essentially emotional criteria in law – that opens the courts up to infinite manipulation,
If you ask 10 people what is fair – you will get 11 answers.
Democrats rigged the referendum on this by injecting the word “fair” – everyone wants fairness, everyone is sure they know what is fair.
and no two people agree on what is fair.
Democrats think it is fair to give minorities preference to compensate for past discrimination.
If “fair” is your determination criteria – they are right. Just as those who argue that things should be done blind to race are also right – according to one conception of fairness.
But if you remove fairness for the criteria and decide based on rights – there is only one answer – you can not fix past discrimination with present discrimination.
My point is – Keep “fairness out of our courts, and our laws.
Life is not fair.
“Why? Because partisan gerrymandering serves no socially useful purpose, and the parties battle it out to rough parity every time they get a chance, all of which wastes tons of money and erodes public confidence”
So ? I have no problem with political parties wasting the money of political donors.
They gave their money freely. If it is being wasted – that is no business of the courts or of the law.
Nor do I have a problem with eroding the public confidence in government and political parties.
The electorate MUST be eteranlly vigilant
“Government Is Like Fire, a Dangerous Servant and a Fearful Master”
We should never forget that – if Democrats and republicns wish to erode public confidence in the parting and government
THAT IS A GOOD THING
Why is anyone surprised that Comrade Spanberger did a 180 after being elected? To Democrat politicians, the maxim “cogito ergo sum.., I think, therefore I am,” means, in reality: “I lie…, therefore I’m a Democrat.”
On a Thursday podcast, former Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli stated:
“The General Assembly elects judges in Virginia, including the seven that are on the bench now. Republican General Assembly has elected four, Democrat General Assembly has elected three.” So though the judges won’t face the voters, Cuccinelli said “…the idea that any Republican would think that this radical left-wing General Assembly is going to reappoint them under any circumstances is fanciful.”
Professor Turley, might the loss of Virginia’s 2 majority-minority districts under this redistricting plan raise the possibility of a challenge under Thornburg v Gingles. While the proponents of redistricting may claim there was no discriminatory intent, wouldn’t abolishing these districts result in discriminatory effect? The irony would be that if there is no discriminatory effect from abolishing a majority-minority district, wouldn’t that challenge the judicial reasoning for creating or maintaining them.
There is hope for Supreme Court reversal. Four of the seven justices are Republican appointees.
But as oldmanfromkansas correctly pointed out below, SCOTUS has already ruled that partisan political gerrymandering is not subject to judicial review. They established that precedent in the recent Texas case where they dismissed challenges to the Texas gerrymander.
That decision has now backfired on them bigly. The Republican appointees allowed the partisan gerrymander in Texas, but did not think through the obvious consequence that it would also allow partisan gerrymanders by Democrats.
Rucho was a 2019 case out of North Carolina, not a recent case out of Texas. Since that time, each state decides for itself whether it allows partisan gerrymandering. Therefore, to the extent your comment suggests the Texas gerrymander set the stage for the Virginia gerrymander, at least legally, it is false. It may be that the Texas gerrymander somehow gave the Virginia people the idea, but how do we know Virginia wouldn’t have done it anyway? The Dems usually will do what they believe will increase their numbers in Congress regardless of what other people do, don’t you think?
In this case SCOTUS is correct – we do not want the courts to get into what is a political process.
That damages the courts to n useful benefit.
WELL SAID, Professor Turley! Let’s not forget the cherry here on the very slim margin cake, was the last minute dump of a too extraordinary amount of mail-in Ballots that almost all just happened to be all in favour of the Dem ploy. The Dems were organized in advance while the surprise Election caught GOP off guard – it took a month just to get up to speed, and still not enough time to organize enough volunteers, esp. in NOVA. Meanwhile the Dems had already set up their Victory Party with catering in progress before Election Day. If one does research on Jay Jones, most of what is there is how he’s a happy Dem camper chosen to be at all the photo ops, all the parties, and overjoyed to be ‘chosen’ as was Abigail, to be plopped into his position, which gives him even more photo ops… Hence the deer-in-the-headlights look to find out that, really, he should have informed the Dems, including Obama, whose face showed up literally every 5 minutes telling VA how to vote, that this whole thing was unConstitutional… but that would mean Jones would have to do something more than a photo op. You can bet this week-end there are Dem heavy weights trying desperately to prepare him with spin for Monday.
“Let’s not forget the cherry here on the very slim margin cake, was the last minute dump of a too extraordinary amount of mail-in Ballots that almost all just happened to be all in favour of the Dem ploy.”
This tactic is exactly what Joe Biden’s gaff (ie, when someone in DC accidentally tells the truth and says the silent part out loud) meant when he said, “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
This seems nothing more than the modern Democrat way to kill their opponents and not have to face criminal charges for the political murder.
-g
There’s no reason for a last minute dump of mail-in ballots. They could be on hand for some time beforehand. It sounds like you don’t like the score and want to stop the count whenever your side is ahead. Should have made sure the first vote was a no vote and tossed out all the votes cast after that one.
Ballot dumps are something the courts CAN and should fix.
The constitution specifies that there is an “election day” not an election month or year.
There should be no early voting
There should be no mailin voting.
Absentee voting should be strictly on a for cause basis and still in person at a government office.
Rather than seeking “fairness” – seek compliance with the law and constitution.
Of course this absurd piece by Turley, and the completely irrelevant and nonsensical ramblings of the MAGA morons here are completely meaningless.
All this theorizing about the legal challenges to the resolution are completely irrelevant.
As oldmanfromkansas correctly observed below, in the recent Texas case SCOTUS ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable issue.
Even if the Virginia Supreme Court strikes down the resolution, it will go to SCOTUS where the resolution will be upheld consistent with its recent ruling that partisan gerrymandering is perfectly fine.
Turley knows perfectly well that the resolution will not be struck down.
Turley knows perfectly well that the precedent has been set that partisan, political gerrymandering is not subject to judicial review.
Today’s little posting is nothing more than a fluff piece to stir up the MAGA rage that Turley so hypocritically condemns, and to sell more of his stupid little books.
@Anonymous
Post with a name. I dare you. Post with a real email address (which the mod can see on WordPress). I dare you. I dare you to show up and say these things as yourself.
James
Whether or not I post a comment with a name has no bearing on the factual veracity of what I say.
Everything I said is completely true, and oldmanfromkansas has already made the point that SCOTUS has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not subject to judicial review.
You obviously do not like this verifiably factual statement that I make, so your only response is to attack me in a fit of rage, thus proving my other point that the sole purpose of this completely disingenuous piece by Turley is to stoke the rage that he so adamantly and hypocritically condemns.
And Turley has achieved his goal as you so amply prove.
Anonymous, this is the second comment of yours that implies the Texas case has something to do with the Virginia case. That is not true. Seven years ago, in a case out of North Carolina, Scotus ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not justiciable (Rucho v. Common Cause). That set the precedent for all cases following 2019. If you disagree, please identify the case you believe came out of Texas where Scotus set that precedent.
Omfk, I’m not that anon but thanks 4 the citation.
It’s some kind of payback for cracking the black districts. How’d the case in Georgia turn out?
If things go as dems want, do you think DJT will seek asylum is Saudi Arabia?
“Whether or not I post a comment with a name has no bearing on the factual veracity of what I say.”
correct – but it has a great deal to do with the extent to which your comments can be trusted.
People do not verify all facts all the time – and as we are constantly learning – such as with the SPLC paying for the Unite the Right protests in 2017 – often what we belive to be FACT ultimately proves false.
There was no russian collusion.
The hunter biden laptop was real.
Covid almost certainly came from a lab in china.
It is likely that for most people the Covid vaccine does more harm than good.
The 2020 election was not the most secure in history.
There was no insurrection on J6
and on and on – alleged “facts” often prove false ‘
I can burn the “factual veracity” of what you say to the ground – with Facts. But it is unlikely you will accept those facts.
Almost all the time humans make decisions without all the facts,
That is why credibility is so important.
Further – much debate is about the future or about what we SHOULD do – and as Hume demonstrated – you can not logically reason from what is to what should be – that is fallacious – and it is what the left does all the time.
much debate hinges not on facts, and not on logic – which is not to say that you get a pass for bad factual clais of logical arguments.
Those of you on the left CONSTANTLY attack Trump as a liar. And that is very important.
If most people really do not trust what Trump says – that is huge. And that is why you attack his trustworthyness.
But as is obvious to everyone but yourselves – Trump is well trusted – not perfectly but well enough.
Trump is not running in 2028. But do you honestly think there is a democrat today that could beat him ?
You have tried to destroy Trust in Trump – instead you have destroyed trust in the left.
Trump is trusted more than the GOP an the GOP is trusted more than the DNC
People just do not beleive those of you on the left anymore.
The weight of your arguments – their merit – requires facts, and solid logic.
But in the real world those are rarely sufficient to tell us with certainty what we SHOULD do.
Credibility is usually the determining factor.
And credibility comes from your past history.
When you post as anonymous – you have no past history and therefore start with zero credibility.
What you have not proven in the 4 corners of your post is not going to be accepted on faith – credit, history, trust, so long as you post anonyously.
You claim that what you say is verifiably true.
Yet “SCOTUS has ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not subject to judicial review.”
Is FALSE. You have fallaciously generalized a federal ruling on the basis of the federal constitution to an absolute
It is NOT. The federal courts including SCOTUS have no jurisdiction over State court rulings limited to State laws and constitution, that do not run afoul of the federal constitution.
SCOTUS is correct as a matter of logical reasoning – that purely olitical issues have no business in court.
But SCOTUS can be 100% right and still not be binding on state courts.
this gerrymandering by VA is blatantly political and morally wrong.
But it is NOT the business of the courts.
This is something that should be solved by the electorate.
However layers are free to argue – and may ever be correct that this runs afoul of the VA constitution.
I would further note that not only is there a potentially legitimate question with respect to whether this gerrymndering violates the VA constitution – there is a separate issue – which is the focus of the effort to overturn this – that the VA law and constitution dictated PROCESS was not followed.
There is a giant difference between V can Gerrymander its federal representatives, and the process that VA used to do so was legitimate.
Everything done by the majority of people is not inherently lawful, constitutional or moral.
WE specificlly have laws, and constitutions to Thwart the mjority for doing whatever they please however they please.
The audience for his books is vanishingly small; this is in service to the billionaires who pay millionaires to convince the middle and lower class to be minions to the oligarchy. That’s where the money is.
MORON ANON
The partisan gerrymandering in and of itself is not the issue. The issues are the blatant violations of the Virginia constitution that occurred in getting this passed. If the VA Supreme Court rules that way, unless there is a conflict with federal law or the U.S. constitution, SCOTUS will not review it.
That’s correct, and I believe the Anonymous commenter doesn’t really understand what’s going on. The Virginia trial court judge invalidated the redistricting map on purely state law grounds. The Virginia Supreme Court (Scova) is the final word on state law issues. Scotus does not have jurisdiction to overrule Scova on matters of Virginial state law. It will therefore be the final word on whether this redistricting stands or falls.
Scotus has jurisdiction over Virginia state law if that law is unconstitutional.
. . . if that law is unconstitutional.
If you mean unconstitutional in the sense that it violates the US Constitution, then you’re correct. But that would be an issue of federal law, i.e., whether a state law violates the federal constitution.
There is no such issue raised in this case. The Virginia trial court ruled that the map violated state law, including the Virginia state constitution. Scova has the final word on the meaning and application of state law, including the VA constituiton. That is all that’s at stake in this litigation – i.e., whether the resolution to redraw the map violated Virginia law. Scova will have the final word.
Correct – But SCOTUS has already ruled that patisan gerrymandering is constitutional under the US constitution.
I would note that the VA supreme court can rule it is NOT under the VA constitution.
And/OR they can rule it is not under the US constitution.
States CAN follow the US constitution in favor of less govenrment power and more individual rights even when SCOTUS ruled more broadly.
OMFK
There are two distinct issues:
First – does this map offend the existing law and constitution – that MUST hinge on VA law and VA constitution as SCOTUS has already decided the issue with regard to federal law and constitution – and I beleive they have done so correctly
Second is did the PROCESS used to establish this map conform to the law and constitution – and in That case – BOTH the VA law and Constitution and Federal law and constitution are implicated.
The ends does not justify the means. SCOTUS has correctly decided that political questions should be resolved by voters.
But SCOTUS has not abdicate the rule of law just because the outcome is political and therefore not the business of the courts.
The PROCESS of the law and constitution must be followed – or the map is out – even if the outcome could have been reached by a legitimate process.
Excellent
While I am content to leave this to the electorate.
This type of gerrymndering is dangerous and stupid – it is a “self punishing act”.
And SCOTUS is correct – the courts shoudl stay out of this.
HOWEVER – it seems likely that the VA supreme court will throw this map out on the basis of the VA constitution.
There is no appeal to federal courts – not even the US supreme court from a State supreme court ruling based on the State constitution.
Whatever the VA supreme court does here – the federal courts will not have jurisdiction.
No this is not “a fluff piece to stir up the MAGA rage”
It is exposure of the corruptness of our political parties – particularly democrats.
The relevant question is what should be done.
And the answer that SCOTUS correctly gave is that political questions should be solved by the electorate.
Lets presume that this stands and Democrats win a very narrow majority in the house.
Enormous numbers of people will view the house as illegitimate – and rightly so.
Obama said wining elections has consequences – but that is only partly true.
The purpose of elections is to establish a foundation of trust for government.
I have repeatedly said that “fairness” has no place in our laws.
That does not mean it has no place in the minds of the electorate.
If people do not trust the process – that weakens government – even for those who won.
And that is how it should be.
I am all for people trusting govenrment less.
The actual power of govenrment is proprtionate to the trust people have in it
So republican/democrat – go ahead and burn trust all you want.
Like the war hawks who keep getting us into forever wars, the Dems shock and awe style of politics is also lacking an exit strategy. Where do they think their campaign to disenfranchise half of America will lead them? To the tranquil land of Totalitarian Rule? That’s what King George III thought when he sparked a shooting war, but he had an ocean of ignorance as an excuse.
Communists gotta communist through their “dictatorship of the proletariat” in order to forcibly impose not the freedom and self-reliance of the Constitution but central planning, control of the means of production (unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, social engineering, and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which are immutably unconstitutional and entirely without legal basis, causing them to be the actions of a direct and mortal enemy, which, in turn, must be totally defeated and eradicated with full maximal force and extreme prejudice.
Why is there Medicare corruption in California and elsewhere?
Because Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are innately corrupt at their origin and completely without legal basis in the Constitution.
Congress has no power to tax for or fund any of these entities of rot per Article 1, Section 8, including “general Welfare,” as they serve only 18.7% of the population and are clearly not “general,” as in all or the whole.
Why is there corruption in the insurance industry? Regular medical insurance is a gamble which takes in huge amounts of money to spend on their giant salaries.
That from a worthless communist who is incapable of starting a commercial enterprise or obtaining employment and supporting himself through an act of self-reliance, which is required in a nation of freedom.
Thou Shalt Not Covet
Thou Shalt Not Steal
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Oops! I forgot. Communists eschew religion. My bad.
When it comes time for Jay Jones to defend the Virginia referendum his most likely strategy will be to shoot the judge twice.
He’ll also be checking in on the judge’s wife and kids.
These Democrats are not defenders of democracy or of the Constitution. They are totalitarians. When a totalitarian tells or shows you what they plan to do, you had best believe them.
ok bummer
hyperbole much
No surprises here. Dems are just pure fraudsters. Now they are trying to run democrats as independents to fool people into thinking they are independent and then if elected will be shills for the democratic party. Can’t win gerrymandering. Can’t win with shills. How about some real policy. Oh I forgot. The party that wants to allow minors to have sex change operations and who wants Iran to win the war can’t come up with any common sense policies. Maybe they will have Trump is gone and their TDS diminishes.
@Anonymous
They are running them as Republicans, too, because they have only disdain for our intelligence. Nevertheless, they are as transparent as ever. We need to choose our candidates very, very carefully. We are now at the point where primaries are of the same importance as general elections, and for *everything*.
With the poor way some of the local and state GOPs do their vetting, the Dimms may well be justified with their disdain. Haven’t heard of a single Democrat trying to run as a Republican who, once discovered, didn’t turn out to be so obviously a Democrat that the GOP should have been able to easily figure it out long before that person got anywhere near being put on a Republican primary ballot. GOP officials can be pretty dim themselves sometimes.
And there you see the difference between the old guard republican who protects his turf in DC and the new age conservatives who disdain this politicization of congress, The old guard would make deals and glad hand with dems to keep the grease on the wheels. The new republicans want to degrease the works and let congress restore the basic principles as set down by our founding fathers and that does not mean a bloated federal government with the notion that DC controls our lives so that the grease stays flowing. There seems to be quite a bit of disfunction while these two sects duke it out. Hopefully, the old guard will age out.
I think that on the local level, there are too many old guard republicans who think this is still the 1950s and that we should all just be nice and get along and we will all get what we want. Maybe that worked way back when, but today’s democrats are not your grandfather’s democrats. At every democrat party level today, they are almost exclusively radical far left activists of the kind who back in your grandfather’s day were only a tiny fringe minority of the party. They do not want to be nice and get along. They want to destroy and scourge the earth of everything those old guard republicans value. The old guard needs to wake up or retire and get out of the way.
I am holding out hope that Spanberger (or possibly Mamdani) will be the one to finally tip the scales in favor of just how awful, disingenuous, power hungry, and corrupt the modern DNC is.
That said: my wife shared an opinion on the SPLC debacle with an uber-blue (the ‘vote blue no matter who’ type) colleague very recently, and he straight up called it fake news, he stated unequivocally, ‘Only right wing rags are even talking about it.’ – until she sent him the NYT piece. Then, he was speechless and the conversation ceased altogether (in a huff, I gather, but it ceased).
Here’s hoping, and what a difference it would make if our MSM collectively were not nearly officially the DNC Pravda.
never happened
you were there??? Even if you weren’t, the parable illustrates what progs fear most – the truth coming to the surface in so many different spots with so much evidence of obfuscation, down right lies and fraud. The legacy media can beat their drums endlessly but a growing segment of the populace is more wary of their blather and seek second opinions. Who was it that said; (i paraphrase here) You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time. I think the progs are going to find out that they have so damaged their credibility at this point that their only true believers are their indoctrinated cult.
@Anonymous
It did. Feel the burn, young leftist, because the person in question was an older dem voter, and in CA. At some point you will have to reconcile the fact that 75% of us still living are not going anywhere for at least 25 years, and no one gives a toss about your juvenile entitlement or brainwashed ideological leanings, which are the result of the same – at this point: even your parents are getting fed up.
And it honestly pains me that you cannot have real conversations with real people in real life because you are flat out terrified of other people. That is a handicap we do not have.
I vote Dem and not Republican for the same reason I don’t vote Nazi. Ever since Nixon and his good Republican cloth coat left the White House, the Republicans have been the party solely for billionaires and the top millionaires, shifting wealth from the lower 80% to the top 20%.
@Anonymous
Spoken like a five-year old. Last time I checked, ‘Nazi’ wasn’t on the ballot, except for the DNC guy that has an *actual* Nazi tattoo. The modern left are doing their best impression, though.
Would love to study your brain that simply blindly accepts what other people tell you. The childhood neural pathways (also known as myelenation) are unique in your generation, I think, due to the way you were raised. Nobody is as impressed as your parents pretended to be to spare your feelings. This is why the likes of the NYT no longer write for all of us, just you lot, They write for each other, not humanity writ large, because that is too big a concept and might include things you don’t like, hoping that the rest of us will be eliminated or killed, so you never have to face anything of any consequence, even just mentally (your brains are your worst enemy) as when you were children. Not sure you still aren’t, even at 40+, now.
You can’t fool us. The rest of us all lived through the Cold War, and some of us even through the McCarthy era. Che Guevara was an equally juvenile idiot who had other people paying his way. So were the beatniks. So were the leaders of the hippy movement. Spare us.
We do not believe you, and we are not going down that road. you are just going to have to find satisfaction with your parents’ basement if you can’t do better, and clearly, you can’t.
How does this magical shift in wealth from the lower 80% to the top 20% happen exactly? Please be specific.
How is this a democracy…virginia districts weren6 democrats and 5 republicans. they, put it to a vote the proposed gerrymandering. the vote is 51 to 49%. it passes and now its 10 democrats and 1 republican.
The frustration you are expressing is shared by many who look at how the American electoral system handles legislative boundaries. The scenario you described highlights a core tension in how we define “democracy.”
When a narrow popular vote margin (like 51% to 49%) translates into a landslide victory in seats (like 10–1), it often feels like the math of the electorate has been ignored. There are several reasons why this happens, ranging from the way the American system is built to the specific mechanics of district drawing.
The Structural Reality: Winner-Take-All
The primary reason this happens is the “First-Past-The-Post” (or winner-take-all) system used in the United States.
• Geography vs. Proportionality: Unlike countries that use Proportional Representation—where a party receiving 51% of the total vote gets roughly 51% of the seats—the U.S. system relies on geographic districts.
• The Threshold: In a single-member district, you only need 50% + 1 vote to win 100% of that district’s representation. That remaining 49% of voters in that district effectively have no representative in the legislative body.
• The Multiplier Effect: Because every district operates on this winner-take-all basis, small vote fluctuations in specific areas can result in massive swings in seat counts. If you win 51% in every single district, you win 100% of the seats with only 51% of the total vote.
The Mechanics of Manipulation: Packing and Cracking
When map-drawers aim to maximize partisan advantage, they utilize two primary strategies that turn voters into “wasted votes.”
1. Packing:
Concentrating as many voters of the opposing party as possible into a
single district. This “wastes” their surplus votes, ensuring they
win that one district by a massive margin (e.g., 90%) but lose
the surrounding districts.
2. Cracking:
Spreading voters of the opposing party across many districts so that
they never reach the 50% threshold needed to win. This ensures
the opposing party loses in multiple districts by narrow margins.
The Virginia Context
It is important to clarify that Virginia’s current congressional and state legislative maps were not created by a simple partisan vote in the legislature.
Following a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2020, Virginia established a Bipartisan Redistricting Commission. When that commission could not agree on maps, the responsibility was handed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which appointed “special masters” to draw the final districts. While critics often still find issues with the resulting maps, the process was designed explicitly to remove the power from the legislature to unilaterally “vote in” gerrymandered maps, precisely to avoid the scenario you described.
Is This Still Democracy?
This depends on how one defines the term:
• Representative Democracy: The American system was designed with the intention of representing communities and localities. The founders envisioned that a representative should be accountable to the specific people living in a specific geography, rather than a party list determined by a central office.
• The Trade-off: The trade-off for this local accountability is that the national or state-wide popular vote often fails to match the legislative seat count.
When people feel that the map-drawing process is being used to insulate politicians from the voters, it challenges the fundamental democratic principle of “the consent of the governed.” The widespread push for independent redistricting commissions, which many states—including Virginia—have adopted, is an attempt to solve this exact problem by taking the pen out of the hands of the people who benefit most from the lines.
^ Has the feel of AI-generated ^
And this is why democracy (mob rule) was singularly rejected by our founding fathers. And that is the reason so many progs want to go to a “popular” vote for president. We would be destroyed in a generation. And a good example is NYC and NY State. The picture of the geographic map of NY state shows that it is, by square mile, 85-90% red yet the insane mob of parasite in the greater NYC area hold the entire state hostage because of sheer amount of people in that very small area. It has almost destroyed the state and businesses and people are leaving because they cannot afford what that mob of parasites in NYC keep voting for themselves with no regard for the red areas.
Yes, New York is in the brink of mass starvation with millions unable to find work and all losing their homes. It’s a wasteland the likes of a nuclear strike. It’s terrible. Mass exodus of homeless swarming into Pennsylvania and New Jersey, opposed by freedom fighters using there 2nd Amendment rights at self-defense against the zombie horde.
Whimsical – get a grip. The main parasites are in the White House strip mining America for the oligarchs.
It is not a fait accompli that Democrats will win all the seats. Yes, they’ve rigged the districts to give them an advantage. But Democrats have just executed what is likely to be a very effective “get out the vote” effort for Republicans. Republican voter turnout is certain to break records.
In addition, some swing voters and Independents will want to punish Democrats for cheating by rigging the system to their advantage. There may even be a couple of Democrats willing to cross party lines and vote Republican as a way to register their disgust for what their party has done.
Why no column on DOJ dropping Powell investigation?
Maybe Turley wanted to leave it to you to post on your own blog.
This case has a history and let me say I’m drinking coffee trying to clear the sand from my head right now. It goes back to a 2020 referendum to establish an independent distracting committee. It passed and had something about counting incarcerated people as part of the people count for distracting. The ACLU came in and filed a complaint saying something or came in as a friend of the court having to do with the black vote. That case was Adkins v. Virginia Redistricting Commission. The court said no to Adkins, 2021.
The voting rights act, 1965, is in play also. Various State and federal laws are in play and the ragged ole Constitution and the once-removed cases and cousins of the 14th that include everything from soup to nuts now.
Hope it all works out.. .Where’d I put that coffee. Sigh
^^^ “distracting” ha haha
As “it does not appear that such a vote has ever been overturned in the state”, let’s assume for the sake of argument that SCOVA will pass the constitutional referendum. Is there a realistic chance that SCOTUS will take the case if asked?
Unlikely. Scotus has already ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable issue. That’s why I said earlier that a constitutional amendment is needed.
I. You are sailing on a different ship: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
II. Tazewell County Circuit Court Chief Judge Jack C. Hurley Jr., concluded that
* required procedural steps under the Virginia Constitution were not properly followed before lawmakers placed the measure on the ballot, making the referendum legally defective, and
* the ballot language given to voters was misleading and failed constitutional standards for clarity.
SCOVA hearings are Monday, 27th 2026 from 9 to 10am.
Anonymous –
You are sailing on a different ship
I’m not sure what that means. The question was, will Scotus take the case if asked? My answer: no. You may be right about Scova, but that is different than Scotus.
Omfk, scotus has already decided, you say? Which cases ? Thanks
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).
Sorry Oldman, no such amendment is needed.
You know when it is bad when the AG gives a waffle of an answer when being pressed by CNN.
That is BAD!
Wouldn’t the questions and answers normally be rehearsed?
Is the Leftycom media coordination machine glitching?