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
Given that partisan gerrymandering has enjoyed a presumption of legality — unlike ethnic or linguistic gerrymandering — this authoritarian overreach was probably a good development for both political parties.
Just look at the numbers:
The amendment passed 51:48. The resulting congressional delegation looks to be 10:1..
That’s the Democrats’ idea of fairness.
And if they want to bring up Republican gerrymandering,
just look at how severely Democratic states, California, Michigan, Massachusetts, etc. were gerrymandered even before this latest round of gerrymandering.
As a land owner in a Republican county in rural Virginia (not all that far from Tazewell), I’m happy to see the judge’s injunction, and I hope it stands. However, the fact that the voters in Virginia elected a well-documented scumbag like Jones to be AG in the first place leaves me sadly unconvinced that those same voters would not have approved this nonsense had the measure on the ballot been worded more accurately.
“Eldridge Gerry”
I learned something. Thank you.
NB: It’s “Elbridge”
“I learned something. Thank you.”
I’ll second that. A quick read of the account of Gerry’s career suggests that he was an outright political hero of the American Revolution, largely unheralded because he clung to his principles and shunned the spotlight. It appears that the political appointments and nominations he declined easily exceeded those he accepted (and many of those he accepted only reluctantly). It sad to think that his name is remembered almost exclusively in connection with a political practice he disapproved of, although he did sign the bill implementing it. We could use some politicians of his kind today, but I believe the species to be extinct.
Pop some popcorn. It will be entertaining to watch Jay Jones try to actually be a lawyer. His experience is very limited. As a side note: Jones, with a conviction for driving at 116 mph on I-64, would not be hired by most federal, state or local law enforcement agencies. Such a conviction demonstrates a lack of concern for the rights and safety of others. Yet he is attorney general.
I ignore the Nonny Mice.
Why do you ignore them if not because you read them?
“I ignore the Nonny Mice.”
You do realize that making a statement that you are ignoring something that you identify is self-contradictory, do you not?
I note that when Professor Turley made a blog post on April 16 about the ballot measure after he voted he did not complain about the ballot wording or any legal issues.
I live in a state that has a history of very creative writing in ballot measures. Clarity and brevity are not hallmarks in the crafting of measures put to the voters. I read reviews and explanations of every measure before I vote on it. The problem is you must seek out sources you trust. Local media is generally not a source that I trust. If I still don’t get it, I vote against it. Not voting is not an option for me. That’s how bad people get elected and bad laws get passed.
Concerned Citizen.. Prof. Turley didn’t have to complain.. he showed the full wording on the Ballot and anyone with half a brain can see the wording is Ridiculously vague, deceptive and misleading……
OT, in the left-wing psychobable pro-hatred lunacy department, the UCLA student government recently condemned the campus appearance of an Israeli hostage, Omer Shem, a 23-yeaer-old student, who was held captive for 505 days by Hamas. Why would the appearance of a hostage held captive by a murderous terrorist group be condemned by the student council? Because the appearance “obscured the broader reality of ongoing state violence.” This is one in a million examples that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the liberalism is a mental disorder and the left-wingers in America are mentally-deranged monsters.
Interesting study, look it up.
“The first study revealed that Democrats had a “notably higher hit rate” for being correct and a lower rate of “confidently” but wrongly marking a false statement as true. So, left-leaning participants were better at both recognizing real facts and rejecting false ones.
This left right-leaning participants being more frequently wrong and also more confident about the thing they were wrong on. In short: Lots of confidence, low facts.”
“look it up”
So, you were not only too lazy to do any research of your own, you were even more indolent in not even quoting the cite provided by the AI bot you used to generate this tripe? Clown.
Bull. If such a “study” even exists, it’s guaranteed not to stand up to five minutes’ scrutiny.
The stunner is Jay Jones was elected after saying he’d kill his opponent and his opponents children.
Not only is this lower than a 3rd world, they also believe in magic. Republicans had better get serious about what’s going on.
Get rid of Susan Collins and those like her having no apparent conscience as Americans have murdered. The toughest Republicans should be in office. People like Homan and Bovino should be in there. You’re stoopit.
I know can you believe it? But, then again this guy was elected President, twice.
Trump: “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
“JFK, Monster!”
This part of Alford’s story doesn’t really add anything to what we already know about Kennedy. Nor does it really change my opinion of the 35th president. But this part does:
Dave Powers was sitting poolside while the President and I swam lazy circles around each other, splashing playfully. Dave had removed his jacket and loosened his tie in the warm air of the pool, but he was otherwise fully clothed. He was sitting on a towel, with his pants leg rolled up, and his bare feet dangling in the water.
The President swam over and whispered in my ear. “Mr. Powers looks a little tense,” he said. “Would you take care of it?”
It was a dare, but I knew exactly what he meant. This was a challenge to give Dave Powers oral sex. I don’t think the President thought I’d do it, but I’m ashamed to say that I did. It was a pathetic, sordid, scene, and is very hard for me to think about today. Dave was jolly and obedient as I stood in the shallow end of the pool and performed my duties. The President silently watched.
Afterwards, Alford says she was “deeply embarrassed,” and as she climbed out of the pool she “could hear Dave speak in as stern a tone as I ever heard him use with his boss. ‘You shouldn’t have made her do that,’ Dave said. ‘I know, I know,’ I heard the President say. Later, a chastened President Kennedy apologized to us both.” Alford believes that Kennedy showed “his darker side … when we were among men he knew. That’s when he felt a need to display his power over me.” Kennedy didn’t just have a thing for Social Register girls; he had a thing for humiliating Social Register girls. He also had a thing for humiliating his fellow Irishman, Dave Powers.
Um, what exactly was the problem with that brag? Do you doubt that it’s true? That there are many women who are so wowed by celebrity that they’ll willingly allow anything to be done to them?
Anyone who claims Trump was admitting to sexually abusing anyone is a TOTAL LIAR. It’s completely obvious that he made no such admission. (Whether he actually did abuse anyone is another question, but there’s no evidence for it. His crude locker room talk to Billy Bush is neither here nor there.)
^^^^^ HEY, have been murdered…
Sack o sh!t
If Trump’s redistricting is constitutional in Texas, it’s constitutional in Virginia.
If it’s unconstitutional in Virginia, MAGA’s nationwide redistricting is also unconstitutional.
Then again, Eric Swalwell is a fairly typical Democrat.
P.S. Different states have different laws about congressional districts. So you statement is false. Basically, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Not so. Different states, different applicable laws.
Here’s news for you: Texas and Virginia do not have the same constitution.
And the answer is:
Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
Reza Pahlavi says:
I have spent the past several weeks travelling across Europe, speaking to members of parliaments, governments, and the press. My visit had one objective, to give a voice to the millions of Iranians held hostage by the Islamic Republic, its terror, and its internet blackout. The millions of Iranians who have been silenced. But I can now say with confidence that that silencing, that censorship is not just happening at the hands of the regime in Iran, but by the international and particularly the European media. So I want to speak directly to the people of Europe.
In the past two weeks, I have had two press conferences, one in Stockholm and one yesterday in Berlin. Between them, more than 150 journalists attended. We spent more than two hours together. And in those two hours, not a single of the 150 journalists asked me a question about the 40,000 Iranians slaughtered on the streets of my country on January 8th and 9th. Not a single of the 150 journalists asked me about the 19 political prisoners executed in the last two weeks. When I told them that there were 20 political prisoners currently sentenced to death, not a single one of the 150 journalists asked me about them.
When I stood next to a mother whose son was killed and a father whose son was killed on January 8th and 9th and asked them to hear their stories, not a single one of the 150 European journalists asked them a question. Here in the heart of a continent that claims to stand for human rights, justice, and dignity, its journalists have fully abdicated their professional responsibilities and even their moral objectivity.
It is clear to me that my 40,000 brave, innocent compatriots who were slaughtered in the fight for liberty are of little interest to these journalists. They seem more interested in criticizing America, asking why the United States and Israel killed the dictator that has slaughtered our people for 47 years than criticizing the regime doing the slaughtering. They seem more interested in asking questions about Iran’s past and history than about what is happening in Iran today or about the democratic future Iranians are seeking.
One member of parliament even told me they didn’t think Iranians were ready for democracy. But to that member of parliament, to those journalists, I remind you, Iranians aren’t just ready for democracy. 40,000 people just gave their lives for it. And I won’t let that be in vain. So know this. Whether or not Europe stands with us, whether or not your journalists do their jobs, whether or not your politicians demonstrate the courage to act, I will fight for my people and my country. Even if you have to do this alone, we will fight until Iran is free.
Put that man on the ground with a berm and an office and start building outward with the full force and weight of the U.S. and Allied military.
What allied military?
“Reza Pahlavi says”
Meh. His father was a brutal dictator who was installed by the CIA, after the 1953 coup that they instigated, in order to allow the UK to continue to pump and sell Iranian oil without paying a fairly negotiated price for it. The position of Shah was essentially created for him out of whole cloth. Words are cheap. Until I see something that convinces me that he has repudiated his father’s brutal policies, and the method by which he ascended to the “Peacock Throne”, I will harbor a deep suspicion that the son is also nothing but a tool of the US Deep State apparatus who intends to treat the people of Iran as his subjects, rather than constituents. I would very much like to see a reasonable, secular government take over from the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran, but I am far from convinced that Pahlavi is a suitable instrument to make that change.
His father was a brutal dictator who was installed by the CIA,
Starting out with a lie.
after the 1953 coup that they instigated,
Another lie.
in order to allow the UK to continue to pump and sell Iranian oil without paying a fairly negotiated price for it.
Two more lies.
1. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi wasn’t “installed” by anyone. He inherited the throne from his father, and was the legitimate sovereign of Iran under its then constitution.
How brutal he was is a matter of judgment, but given what happened to his reign when Carter forced him to slack off it seems to me that he was only as brutal as he had to be.
2. The 1953 coup was what ousted him. It certainly wasn’t instigated by the CIA, but likely by the KGB. The CIA assisted him in returning to power by running a propaganda campaign to convince the people that they wanted him back. It worked, the people demanded his return, and he resumed his reign where it had been so rudely interrupted by the coup.
3. The oil in question was not “Iranian”. The whole concept that a government owns the resources that happen to lie within the territory it controls has no basis in law or reason. The oil field was discovered and developed entirely by BP, so BP was the rightful owner. The Iranian government had no legitimate claim to it. The coup leaders stole that oil from BP.
4. Nevertheless, that is not the view the USA took. Eisenhower had no interest in helping the UK. On the contrary, he hated the UK and took every opportunity to screw the British over. After helping the Shah to return, Eisenhower forced the UK to stop supporting BP’s claim, lift its blockade, and allow the Shah to “nationalize” the oil, making BP pay for it. So the effect of the USA’s intervention was the exact opposite of your claim.
The Mullahs’ regime is as evil as Hitler’s, which means the coup in which it took power was illegitimate and should be reversed. That means Iran should go back to the status quo ante, and then look at what reforms to make.
On why Svelaz / Peter Shill / X et al trolls 24/7
read to the tempo of “Brokeback Mountain”
🤠
In basements lit by screens’ cold glow,
They type out rage they barely know.
A warrior bold—behind a name,
Where consequences never came.
They mock, provoke, declare they win,
While real life knocks—they won’t let in.
For all their noise and pixel crusades,
They miss the touch that sunlight trades.
So kingdoms built on comment threads—
Are lonelier than their empty beds.
that was me.
Peter you know I’m your #1 fan. Now get out of your hole, go cruise WeHo and get laid FFS! Don’t forget to take Truvada
“Many of us”
Turley has a tape-worm?
The language:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily
adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring
Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?
seems very clear to me and should be obvious to anyone who understands congressional districts.
The only thing that is dubious is the alternative fiction being promoted as facts in thecolumn.
Who would be against restoring fairness? So they loaded the rabbit in the hat to get a “yes” vote. The Virginia court reviewed the facts of the case and ruled as follows:
HB 1384 violates the Submission Clause of the Va. Const. art. XII, Section 1 because the ballot language proposed in HB 1384 submits to the voters a flagrantly misleading question to the voters, and because the ballot language did not accurately describe the proposed amendment as it was passed by the General Assembly.
That was one out of seven ways that the court found the proposed amendment to be contrary to law. If you want to see the other six, I posted a link below in my 5:47 comment.
Merriam Webster:
fairness
noun
fair·ness ˈfer-nəs
: the quality or state of being fair
especially : fair or impartial treatment : lack of favoritism toward one side or another
How exactly is turning Virginia into a de facto one party state not showing “favoritism toward one side”?
Democrat is the party of Fascism to a degree that would make Hitler himself blush.
This news story shows the actual ruling (see below). As you can see from the ruling, the Virginia circuit court listed seven different ways the map violates Virginia law, most of them being violations of the Virginia state constitution.
https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-congressional-map-redistricting-referendum-vote-attorney-general-tazewell-county-court-republicans-enjoins-injuctive-relief-voters-election-democrats-house-representatives
The ballot ‘restore fairness’ was blatant electioneering.