“Incredible, unstoppable titan of terror!” Those words advertising the 1954 movie Godzilla could be the billing of a new freakish giant stretching across the sleeping farm fields of Virginia. Now in a court near you is The Lobster, a monster over 100 miles long. The only saving grace is that this creature only devours Republicans, leaving roughly half the state with virtually no representation in Congress.
Virginia was a quiet, pastoral state before the creature’s appearance. It was considered the gold standard among states rejecting gerrymandering, with fairly divided districts in a state 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 mad scientists who created this monster, now called the 7th Congressional District, created other weirdly shaped monstrosities designed to reduce a fairly evenly divided representation in the state to a 10-1 advantage for Democrats.
While one lower court has struck down the plan, another district judge recently looked at the Lobster and ran for cover. Richmond Circuit Court Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland seems to follow the view of the 2019 Godzilla creators that “sometimes… the only way to heal our wounds is to make peace with the demons who created them.”
What is most notable about the opinion is how irrelevant the Virginia constitutional and statutory standards are in the analysis. Among other things, the state law requires districts to be “compact,” not crustacean-shaped. The Constitution states districts “shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory and shall be so constituted as to give, as nearly as is practicable, representation in proportion to the population of the district.”
Without a suggestion of humor, the court states dryly that the new districts are “undoubtedly less compact than the ones they replace. They are certainly partisan gerrymanders. They displace both representatives and voters into new, oddly shaped districts.”
In one of the most bizarre lines, the court declares, “reasonable and objective persons reached different conclusions on the effects of the 2026 maps. The issue of compactness is fairly debatable.”
Fairly debatable on compactness? It is a giant lobster stretching over 100 miles. It is a true “Godzilla!” spotting. but Judge Thorne-Begland just shrugged and walked away.
While the court is not the first to note how these terms are subject to different interpretations, the “subjectivity” cited by the court makes the standard largely meaningless. The compactness requirement has been described as “somewhat abstract” with no “bright line” test. Vesilind v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 295 Va. 427, 444-45 (2018). However, this approach would effectively remove the language as holding any substantive interpretive meaning.
Judge Thorne-Begland effectively holds that it is really not his job to fight the Lobster: “This Court knows its role is clear. It is not to assess the wisdom of public policy nor to engage in policy making from the bench.”
There are a myriad of problems with the Virginia gerrymandering measure, from the vague language to the special sessions used to craft it. Thorne-Begland, however, shows the same reaction as the Japanese citizens in Tokyo who ran screaming from the creature’s approach as it crushed everything in its path.
It is not clear how the Virginia Supreme Court will rule on the matter. Many of us who have long opposed gerrymandering by both parties hope they will hold the line and reject this effort. It will take considerable courage. These justices rely on a democratically controlled legislature for their positions.
The Supreme Court can do as Judge Thorne-Begland did and just take flight. They can treat the prior standards and procedures as aspirational or irrelevant. Or they can act as a true check on legislative excess and abuse.
In the end, the Japanese horror writers were right about one thing: “Godzilla and Biollante aren’t monsters. It’s the unscrupulous scientists who create them that are monsters.”
This is how Democrats “save our democracy”? By negating legislative representation of their political opponents? When people tell you who they are by their words or actions, you had best believe them.
Nov. 16, 2023, 9:53 AM PST
By Jane C. Timm
New York’s top court will soon decide whether to allow the state’s congressional map to be redrawn for a third time this decade, as Democrats seek to eke out more favorable political boundary lines before the 2024 elections.
3rd time in a decade READ IT ANON
:* I’m Jane Smith and I’m 23 years old. I am an aspiring model who is at least 18 years old. I enjoy having my photo taken in the sun. Please rate my photographs using this link.
……………………..➤ https://datewithmehere10.netlify.app/
From July 15, 2025
It Was Trump Who Started Race To Redistrict
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to his party, part of a broader effort to help the GOP retain control of the chamber in next year’s midterm elections.
Asked as he departed the White House for Pittsburgh about the possibility of adding GOP-friendly districts around the country, Trump responded, “Texas will be the biggest one. And that’ll be five.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-congress-house-republicans-texas-redistricting-d18e8280a32872d9eefcbb26f66a0331
…………………………………
Nowhere in Turley’s column does he mention Trump or Texas. As though it’s not relevant!
Historically, redistricting only occurred in the first year of every decade. Redistricting took place after new census figures were released.
But Trump already knew, way last summer, that the midterm elections could be a tough slog for Republicans. So Trump came up with the brilliant idea of having his loyalists in Texas redistrict in the middle of the decade.
Though curiously even Texas Republicans weren’t completely sure it was a good idea. Trump’s mass deportations had already alienated almost every Hispanic who voted for Trump in 2024. So no one in Texas was positive ‘if’ redistricting would favor Republicans.
Interestingly, Florida now faces that same challenge as it considers its own redistricting scheme. The Hispanic vote could dilute any new districts intended to favor Republicans. No wonder Trump wants to deport Hispanics!
Trump’s brilliant redistricting idea has already backfired in a spectacular fashion. But don’t Johnathan Turley to tell you that!
New York’s most consequential mid‑decade redistricting occurred in winter 2024 after the state’s highest court ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to produce a second set of congressional maps by February 28, 2024,
HEY ANON 2024 IN NY is BEFORE 2025 in Texas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am just so confused. Why did Virginia do this?
It is absolutely unbelievable that folks here think the census counting illegal aliens is somehow uniformly bad for Texas with respect to apportionment. It gives mostly red states MORE electoral votes for the presidential election and MORE congressional seats as well. It may have some skew with respect to how many of those nonvoting people are counted in a particular part of the state but… THEY CANT VOTE anyways! It is ridiculous to think that on balance it is a net negative.
Absolutely hilarious.
This is a good question for a conservative crowd. COVID killed over a million Americans. What conspiracy conspiracy did Fauci perpetrate?
Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
https://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html
https://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html
Prof T, I don’t think you’re right on this one. Assuming for the sake of argument that the referendum was valid, then surely it overrides any previous constitutional requirements. So the new map that the voters approved doesn’t have to be compact or contiguous or contemporaneous or any of those other C words. That’s the beauty of amending the constitution; you don’t have to worry about what the constitution used to say, because now it says what you want.
So the only question is whether the referendum was actually valid, which depends on what the word “election” means, on whether the postage requirement is still in effect, and on whether the language was misleading. All questions for which plausible arguments can be made on either side, so the supreme court will have to figure them out.
Milhouse, when was it amended? Tongue n cheek?
Anon, that’s what the referendum was for. If you didn’t know that, then you know nothing at all about the topic and shouldn’t comment on it.
A majority of Virginia’s voters decided to amend the constitution. There’s no question about that. The question is whether their vote was valid.
The constitution, like all constitutions, says how it can be amended. For instance the US constitution can only be amended by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures. If one of those thresholds is not reached, then the constitution is not amended.
Here the constitution requires that a proposed amendment must first be passed by the legislature, then it must sit until after the next general election and be passed again, and then not less than 90 days later it must be put to the voters with language that isn’t misleading. The state supreme court is now considering whether these steps were followed. But if it decides they were, then the constitution has been amended. Therefore the amendment obviously overrides anything in the previous constitution that contradicts it. Such as the requirement for compact districts.
Amended VA’s constitution?
It’s absurd. 😂
In 100 years there won’t be a USA. The name may remain but I doubt it. Most unfortunate people…
Huh? What could possibly be absurd about a state amending its constitution? States do it all the time. The USA does it all the time. The US constitution has been amended twenty-seven times. Do you think that’s absurd too?!
The VA constitution was adopted just 55 years ago, and in that time it has been amended 53 times! If this referendum is upheld, that will be the 54th amendment to the 1971 constitution.
So if you think amending a constitution is absurd, you’re a moron.
It won’t happen, Milhouse. You’re the person that misleads the 14A. Right.
Have a good evening
What the hell are you talking about, you blithering ignoramus?
We have no Rule of Law in this country just in case you hadn’t heard yet.
The entire judiciary is corrupt.
The left just disbarred John Eastman
Kevin Clinesmith keeps his license even after being caught fabricating evidence.
Tina Peters exposed their crimes and she sits in prison to this day.
The *actual* criminals, caught abusing their power, using it to destroy innocent people, continue to keep their law licenses!
Patrick Scruggs will not even lose his law license or spend any real time in prison.
Happens time and time again — always in one direction.
It’s sickening.
The entire Democrat party is a giant criminal racket that should cease to exist.
“The Lectern Guy🇺🇸
@lecternleader
Tina Peters was sentenced to 9 years for non-violent crimes.
Patrick Scruggs, a Federal prosecutor, who stabbed man 7 times got 90 days and adjudication withheld for 3 felonies.
The system protects itself.”
This is why James Comey can continue to say, “I’m not afraid.”
he’s part of the protected criminal class. and he’s quite confident in that.
Yes, anon. It’s hard core criminals.
OT
King Charles’ speech today was a breath of air. It had history and literature included. It was well spoken and respectfully delivered and prepared. It was enjoyable.
I agree.
It is particularly refreshing to hear someone speak coherently and rationally to Congress in complete, grammatically correct sentences in such a way that what is said actually makes sense and is understandable.
Certainly a refreshing change from the incoherent rambling and ranting of Trump in the State of the Nation address.
My personal favorite is Rashida Tlaib screaming at Byron Donald.
I like Jasmine Crockett’s fake “y’all.”
She’s gone. Horrible
Joe Biden was a fine orator. You know, the thing. Quotable…
Obama sucked unless he was reading from a teleprompter, but even then everything was I, I, I, I, me,me,me, me…because he was so full of himself.
Remember kids, for entire political career Spanberger has called her self the most “bipartisan member of Congress”.
Amazingly, Democrats can’t even defend what they’ve done. Spanberger couldn’t defend it during the election, and even took the opposite side of the issue in order to win. Now, Democrat judges just throw up their hands and shrug their shoulders. “Oh, well,” they say, “it’s not Constitutional or legal but we’re just going to look the other way because Trump.” When a pathological hatred for a sitting president leads you to tear up the very state Constitution you claim to respect, it speaks volumes about why you should not be handed even more power.
OT
Even the would- be assassin mocked the unbelievably sloppy security ‘protecting’ the President, the Vice-President and much of the rest of the upper strata of the executive branch. A number of arriving guests wondered about the poor security as well.
Who, in God’s name, thought it a good idea to put all those people together on what must be a terrorist bulls eye? Is there nobody with at least the training up to the level of a Walmart security guard in the security organizations?
And the shooting! A lot of shots were fired but the only person who hit anything was the nerd, teacher assassin who likely has spent very little time on the range. We saw at Butler that some Secret Service agents have trouble with holstering their own weapon. After the recent display of agents shooting at a terrorist, they might as well super glue their guns in the holsters so it looks nice but can’t hurt anybody.
The failures are spectacular, simply spectacular. A beginner, even a retard, [and a sniper] would look at the roof in Butler and think, “That is a place that needs guarding.” But not the Secret Service. In Florida even a halfwit would look at the bushy perimeter of the golf course and think, “That’s cover enough for a hide. We need to check it all out.” It was local law enforcement who found it. In the recent incident even reporters immediately spotted the many security vulnerabilities. Reporters! Not a class known for intelligence! Yet they could see the holes.
The only thing secret about the Secret Service is their incompetence but the secret is out.
Maybe Trump and the rest of the Republicans need to hire Blackwater or some other mercenary group that hasn’t been polluted with DEI and Antifa and Democrat subversives and actually has training and knows what the job is. They sure as hell are not safe with the current “protection.”
“The only thing secret about the Secret Service is their incompetence but the secret is out.”
You’re assuming that the Secret Service could not be infected with TDS? That would seem to be an Occam’s Razor compliant explanation.
I thought they did a pretty decent job. They got him down without killing him before he was ever able to inflict harm to President or Administration. Real life is not like Hollywood and there are no special effects. Since they got rid of DEI hires and called back the A team, hats off boys! Keep up the great job!
I thought it was horrible, too, Young. Bizarre
Mark Steyn has similar thoughts:
“Is the Secret Service Fit for Purpose”
https://quotulatiousness.ca/blog/2026/04/28/is-the-secret-service-fit-for-purpose
Doesn’t seem like.
Aside from the Potter Stewart test, “I know it when I see it,” there are a number of geometric based measures of compactness that can be used:
the ratio of the length to the width of the minimum bounding rectangle,
the ratio of the area of the district to the area of a minimum bounding circle,
the ratio of the area of the district to the area of the circle with the same perimeter as the district,
the ratio of the area of the district to the area of the minimum bounding convex hull (smallest enclosing envelope w/o indentations).
I am a bit surprised that the districts have not been characterized by at least one of these geometric measures. This would perhaps shed light on if the new districts were more or less compact compared with the previous districts. If they were less compact, then I would expect the judicial system to revert to the more compact set of districts.
Minimum bounding convex hull? Are you certain and without indentations! Seriously…
😂
AN, perhaps compact simply references topology, closed. What about surface area and volume. People are volume.
Closed and bounded.
THE LOBSTER IS NOT A COMPACT SHAPE, EUCLID. Shapes are compact or not. Circles are compact, rectangles are, squares are.
Jesus H. Christ, let’s ask Stephen Hawking. Thanks Nordseick.
^^^ the LOBSTER is closed and bounded but honestly organic shapes produce this. The most compact shape is a circle. Lay a doggone square grid over the doggone state. Remove sides and create rectangles. WTH is so hard. Use longitude and latitude. You’ll have the outer boundaries of the state as irregular. The idea of fairness is violated and if laws are being passed that do not affect all people then you have too many laws.
Noncitizens are identified in census. They do not have representation in congress and should not within states.
.Noncitizens are identified in census. They do not have representation in congress and should not within states.
The constitution specifically says that states get representation for ALL PERSONS who are within their boundaries when the census is conducted. Including aliens, whether legal or not. Also including women, children, felons, and other non-voters.
The census does NOT identify who is a citizen and who is an alien, because that’s not its purpose. It only excludes “Indians not taxed”, and since 1924 that is an empty category because all Indians are now taxed and are subject to US jurisdiction. (In my opinion, although the constitution doesn’t explicitly say so, by implication it also excludes foreign diplomats, so they shouldn’t be counted in the census. I don’t know whether the census bureau actually does count them.)
There you’ve stated the big reason for sanctuary States. To beef up census numbers. Does that include illegal presence, millhouse? Millions? I’d call it an emergency that could potentially nullify an election.
@Anonymous
Yup. And hence the stealth flying of such folks into non- sanctuary places. Totally obvious and transparent, and also hence the hissyfit on the left at not counting them in the census. The depths of dem corruption could not he reached by any existing submarine.
James, you have it backwards. Flying them into non-sanctuary places defeats the purpose, because it boosts those places’ numbers in the next census, so they get extra representation at the expense of the sanctuary places. For this to work the non-voting aliens must be encouraged to settle in Dem-controlled states and areas, so the legitimate voters of those areas have their votes multiplied by all their neighbors who don’t vote.
Of course it includes illegal presence. “The whole number of persons” means the whole number of persons. Not just “persons there legally”.
It’s cheating, millhouse, and unfair representation. It should be a Constitutional crisis based on elections.
Don’t throw pearls to the swine. They’ll trample them and turn and rend you.
You’ve seen it.
Why was Pelosi crying at King Charles ‘ speech?
It’s not cheating, it’s what the constitution specifies. If you don’t like it, propose an amendment.
It’s cheating milhouse, but if that’s your idea of fair play and constitutional intent then I have nothing more to say.
You had nothing to say in the first place. Following the constitution is by definition not cheating!
And there’s no such thing as “constitutional intent”. The constitution, like any law, means what it says, not what someone allegedly intended.
Oh milhouse, you misread 14A.
It’s ok
What the hell are you talking about? What has the 14A got to do with this.
But no, I have not misread it. You’re just a filthy liar.
I agree, Nord
One quibble: The sentence “These justices rely on a democratically controlled legislature for their positions” should read “These justices rely on a (big D ) Democratically controlled legislature for their positions.” While correct to say the legislature was democratically elected, it is solidly controlled by the Democrats, and it will likely be Democrats who select the next slate of State Supremes.
Partisan gerrymandering serves no socially beneficial purpose, and it is done by both the Dems and the GOP. As long as each side does it, the other will too, to counterbalance.
This is a classic scenario where the practice needs to be banned by a higher legal authority – the US Constitution. Any hopes that the existing provisions of that document would come to the rescue were dashed when Scotus ruled it was a non-justiciable political question in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). Therefore, what is needed is a Fair Districts Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Fair Districts Amendment should say two things: (a) congressional districts [perhaps also state legislative districts] must be drawn solely to satisfy four politically-neutral metrics, as they should be contiguous, as compact as reasonably possible, of equal population, and minimize political subdivision splits, and (b) the federal courts shall not deem challenges under the FDA nonjusticiable.
The reason I say “as compact as reasonably possible” rather than “compact” (as VA state law requires), is to avoid judicial rulings like this one, saying, well some reasonable people believe this gerrymandered district is compact, so who am I to disagree? Saying “as compact as reasonably possible” avoids that result because a plaintiff will be able to prove a violation by demonstrating that a map can be drawn that has improved compactness measures and still satisfies the other three metrics. There are different mathematical ways of measuring compactness, and an objective compactness method can be devised to show one map is better than another in the compactness department.
So you would disagree with DeSantis trying to push through blatantly partisan redistricting despite the existence of a FL Fair Districts Amendment?
And if a brazen governor can ignore it anyway with popular support, what is the point of getting it done nationally? We already live in a bizzaro world where the language in the law – whether that be the Constitution, statutory law, case law, etc. – are ignored. This is the Era of Trump.
I don’t think you actually read my comment before reacting to it. Try again.
The proposed Florida districting ISN’T “blatantly partisan”. It simply redraws the map so as to comply with the expected ruling on Callais, which would render the existing map illegal. The existing map was consciously and deliberately drawn so as to give an advantage to voters of certain races over those of others. That is about to be declared illegal, as should have been done decades ago.
The new proposed map simply draws the boundaries fairly, without regard for race, as it should always have been. The Democrats still get four seats out of 28. A blatantly partisan map would have reduced them to one or two seats, like Virginia did.
I would preferably just have districts drawn by computers that make districts geometrically as compact as possible. No human involvement at all. Or better yet, just have elections statewide for Representatives! T
There is no need to have the interests of a particular town/county/region represented by a single politician – it just leads to pork barrel spending in favor of job creation in that area.
Districts are already drawn by computers, but humans select the maps they like best. Redistricting is presently very sophisticated, in which computer software can crank out literally hundreds of thousands of possible maps and run many election simulations on them. The problem is with the humans who pick the map to pass into law. If they are motivated primarily by partisan considerations, they will pick a highly gerrymandered map. If constitutional or other legal limitations apply, such as with my proposed FDA, then they have no choice but to pick the fairest map – because if they don’t, a plaintiff will easily be able to prove a constitutional violation by coming up with a better map. (Plaintiffs often have access to the same or similar map-drawing software.)
No you missed the point. A map that is based purely on geometry and not on anything else would ignore for example county or municipal boundaries.
Nordseik has simple ideas regarding compact. It’s simple. People aren’t working in good faith so lobsters appear. Compact is mathematics but that’s racist.
It is amazing to see how folks on this blog will take different sides of the same issue depending on whether the side benefits the Blue vs the Red team. Political gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.
This is wrong, just as it is wrong in TX, FL, CA, etc.
In one of the most bizarre lines, the court declares, “reasonable and objective persons reached different conclusions on the effects of the 2026 maps. The issue of compactness is fairly debatable.”
If reasonable and objective persons sincerely think 2+2=5 and the sun rises in the west, does that make those conclusions “fairly debatable”?
If you care about this issue, you should read the VA Supreme Court’s 2018 case: Vesilind v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 295 Va. 427, 444-45, 813 S.E.2d 739, 748 (2018).
“Fairly debatable” is the actual legal standard from 2018. A challenged district will be upheld if the contiguity and compactness of its territory is “fairly debatable.” Vesilind, 295 Va. at 445, 813 S.E.2d at 749. In this analysis, courts also acknowledge legislative discretion in reconciling the contiguity and compactness requirement among the multiple other redistricting concerns.
The Vesilind court deemed a House district that wrapped around another district like a horseshoe to be compact. Consequently, Virginia’s bar for contiguousness and compactness is so low that it functionally may be no bar at all.
“Our Constitution speaks to the result of the redistricting process, and mandates that districts be compact in the end. It does not attempt to curtail the legislative process that creates the end result. Nor does it require that compactness be given priority over other considerations, much less establish a standard to determine whether the legislature gave proper priority to compactness.”
—
All of that is to say that if the voters of VA wished to make the inquiry an objective one, they could have changed the state Constitution. But they did not, and therefore, the VA Supreme Court should not make new law themselves.
The trial court judge who knocked out the amendment cited about seven different ways it violated the VA constitution, mostly based on process defects . . . thus, not limited to the districts themselves.
And also, I have been consistent on this blog in saying a federal constitutional amendment is needed that would moot out these types of state-law issues (see my 1:58 comment above).
With that said, any suggestion that it’s “fairly debatable” that the lobster district is compact is, in my view, equivalent to saying it’s fairly debatable that 2+2=5.
Read the VA Supreme Court precedent.
The Tazewell County Circuit Court judge’s April 22 order remains in place: it blocks the Virginia Department of Elections from certifying the April 21 special election results and prohibits any steps to implement the new map (including updating voter records or using it for future elections).
The Virginia Supreme Court (SCOVA) heard oral arguments on the appeal yesterday (April 27), but it has not yet issued a ruling on the merits or granted any emergency stay that would lift the lower court’s injunction.
Certification (originally expected around early May) is therefore on hold. The existing congressional maps (the ones in place before the special election) continue to govern until SCOVA decides otherwise.
A final decision from SCOVA is expected in the coming weeks because of the tight timeline for the 2026 elections (candidate filing deadlines, etc.), but for now the new maps have no legal effect.
Thanks for that update. Saves us some time.
I was surprised that Turley, or any people commenting so far, didn’t mention the language used in the referendum. The language is supposed to be non-partisan, fair and NOT MISLEADING. so I ask, Mr. X and others, does the following sound fair, not misleading and non-partisan:
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 redistricting after the 2030 census?
Who got to decide what “fairness” is in this context? What exactly is being “restored” if the state is going from 6-5 to 10-1?
I will leave the whole UNCONSTITIONAL (VA) process used by this radical legislature for another comment.
Excellent to point out. thx
The specific wording was discussed on the April 24th blog post. The April 16th blog post covered the Professor’s reaction after he just voted.
This was me, Hullbobby. I don’t know why it came out from “Anonymous”??
How can a referendum be “non-partisan”?
It is, by definition, a question meant to ask the populace whether they support a specific cause.
I also don’t think it is misleading —> it is being deliberately partisan. VA is fighting GOP redistricting for professed political gain in TX and elsewhere with the same in VA.
Obviously, the process is not “fair” by rigging the VA votes in the Democrat’s favor, but the goal is to fight the same thing the GOP is doing to minimize unfairness nationally.
I hate gerrymandering and don’t support any of this, but it is overtly partisan and clear.
I found the wording to be very misleading. What low-information voter was going to vote against fairness?
“Low-information voter” ??
How many voters actually know anything about the policies of the candidate they support? Who knew that “anti-War” Trump was going to start a war in the Middle East?
In our system, the onus is on the voter to take the initiative and learn more.
There is exactly zero “onus” on any voter to know ANYTHING about any issue, policy or politician.
But it’s stated as temporary fairness just for this election. That is wording intended to lead fools around.
Who got to decide what “fairness” is in this context? The voters. The “fairness” being “restored” is that in Congress.
The argument put to the voters was that the Republican gerrymanders in Texas, Missouri, and elsewhere were “unfair” in some sense, and therefore Virginia gerrymandering the other direction would go some way to “restoring fairness” in the overall result.
It would take away from Republicans the advantage they had unfairly seized in those states, and restore to Democrats the loss that had been unfairly inflicted on them.
The problem with that argument is that it assumes all voters have bothered to educate themselves in advance on what a measure is about, so they’re not really influenced by the language of the question. And that those who are minimally engaged simply take a party’s advice on how to vote, and don’t even bother reading the language; they just vote “Yes on A, C, and D, No on B”, or whatever it is their party has advised.
And yes, there are many, perhaps a majority, of voters who fall into one of those two categories, but there are also a lot of minimally engaged voters who vote because they feel it’s the right thing to do, but they don’t really know what the issues are, so they read the language and make their minds up on the spot. And such voters can be expected to see “restore fairness” and think “Well, of course we must restore fairness, who could be against that?”
If there were no such voters then the law wouldn’t bother regulating the language on the ballot. For the first two categories of voters no language at all is necessary. Just call it by a letter or number and let people vote blindly, based on their previous research or on their party’s how-to-vote card. If you don’t know what “Proposition 43” is, don’t vote on it. If the law specifies that there must be language and it must not be misleading, it must be catering for the third category of voter who is actually guided by that language, so the Dems’ argument collapses.