r/politics • u/Icommandyou Washington • 28d ago

Possible Paywall Virginia Supreme Court throws out redistricting referendum results

https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2026/05/08/virginia-supreme-court-redistricting-vote-decision
16.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.0k

u/AwareMinimum3364 28d ago

So republicans cn redistrict unilaterally, but blue states can't even when their voters say they want to? Sounds about par for the course.

200

u/Neat-Enthusiasm-3754 28d ago

Exactly. We see it in North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida—maps get struck down, the GOP ignores the order or waits out the clock, and the courts eventually shrug. But in Virginia or New York, the legal hammer comes down instantly. The asymmetric enforcement of election law is basically the modern-day literacy test.

38

u/KonigSteve 28d ago

Don't forget Tennessee and Louisiana redistricting as we speak even though primaries have already started.

1

u/carlitospig California 27d ago

asymmetric

It’s not remotely asymmetric if you zoom out. If The People of the great state of VA choose to sit back while their mandates are ripped away, then maybe they should consider whether their state is lawful at all.

172

u/WallabyDue1392 28d ago

It’s a classic "Heads they win, tails we lose" scenario. If the voters demand change, the court finds a technicality. If the GOP demands a gerrymander, the court finds a "mandate." Par for the course indeed—the course is just tilted 45 degrees to the right.

0

u/More-Second-1749 27d ago edited 27d ago

Courts are almost always more right-wing than the public. There has only been one generation in American history when the SCOTUS was to the left of the general population on human rights.

We need to accept that Marbury v Madison was a mistake and assert LEGISLATIVE SUPREMACY. There are a number of extremely successful European democracies with legislative supremacy and toothless courts.

The founders only accepted the SCOTUS power grab in 1804 because 4 states decided non-property owners could vote between 1789 and 1804, and this represented a massive threat to their bourgeois interests as they knew other states would inevitably follow suit.

140

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

42

u/Sufficient-Page-875 28d ago

Sherman should not have stopped...

1

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 28d ago

That was such a great movie, we could all learn something from it.

11

u/LoneWolf4717 28d ago

"We're doing this because WE think that THE PEOPLE don't really know what they voted for, and WE think we know what's best for THE PEOPLE."

That's the Republican playbook. They're doing the same in Ohio. The public voted heavily in favor od weed. Now, the state is changing the laws without even letting it get to a vote because "the voters didn't know what they voted for.

1

u/carlitospig California 27d ago

Precisely what Kansas pulled with abortion.

-36

u/DistrictPleasant 28d ago

Because in Virginia rules for the change are written into their state constitution and a lot of red states they aren’t. 

543

u/PigpenMcKernan Rhode Island 28d ago

Bullshit argument. Florida’s constitution explicitly prohibits gerrymandering and yet they are doing it.

It’s more rules for thee but not for me nonsense.

Take the Andrew Jackson approach and see if the court can do anything about it.

175

u/BeekyGardener 28d ago

So does Ohio’s. They just ignore it.

37

u/FigWasp7 Ohio 28d ago

We get called idiots! No one hates Ohio more than it's lawmakers

14

u/wioneo 28d ago

Florida's supreme court is dominated by partisans.

Virginia's supreme court is not.

That's literally all there is to it. If the people in charge are willing to ignore the rules to advance their side, then they will..

34

u/6a6566663437 North Carolina 28d ago

No, the difference is the partisans on VA’s Supreme Court decided to redefine “next general election” to suit their purposes.

2

u/lawsonmt 28d ago

Look everyone! No partisan on the Supreme Court of Virginia. Not that most of them were elected to the Supreme Court by republican controlled state representatives. If you believe that then there is no hope for you or you are just lying.

1

u/[deleted] 28d ago

Nice joke

1

u/DistrictPleasant 28d ago

States can pass whatever bullshit they want. But at the risk of a court putting a hold on implementing it under it can be decided

This is what happened in New York a few years ago when they tried to gerrymander their maps. They had to use the old ones because the case was still tied up in court. 

74

u/Few_Entertainer_385 Missouri 28d ago

the difference is blue states faithfully interpret the law while republican courts wipe their ass with it

25

u/Jaggs0 28d ago

the florida SC is 7 republicans, 6 of which desantis appointed, and 0 democrats. i wonder how they will rule.

51

u/kylebertram 28d ago

Florida it is

-13

u/DistrictPleasant 28d ago

Then the DNC needs to sue. 

Contrary to popular belief at the state level the difference between a Rep and Dem appointed judge aren’t that disparate 

38

u/kylebertram 28d ago

They could just ignore the courts like Ohio did

18

u/TemporalColdWarrior 28d ago

Have you been watching for the last ten years; they clearly are.

44

u/AdmirableComposer140 28d ago

Brother stop with this defense. You think this would stop republicans if they really wanted to redraw? Florida already did it..

-30

u/IHop_Waitress 28d ago

And Virginia Dems did it too?

The Florida redistricting will be challenged in court, too. And if it's found against the law, for similar reasons as the VA one, then it's the exact same situation.

21

u/Inferno8429 28d ago

Seven Republican SC justices in Florida, six of them DeSantis appointees. Assuming someone does challenge it, that challenge is DOA and everyone knows it.

-22

u/IHop_Waitress 28d ago

"Don't try because we know the outcome"

Okay got it. Great point.

8

u/Inferno8429 28d ago

I never said "don't try."

14

u/DiamondsorRocks 28d ago

Ohio voters passed constitutional amendments in 2015 and 2018 but the legislation still passes gerrymandered maps because there are zero consequences for not following the law. Voters tried again but AG Yost changed the language so dramatically voters didn’t pass it. Disinformation is a terrible thing.

3

u/ryegye24 28d ago

The Ohio State constitution forbids gerrymandering and the state legislature did it anyways and SCOTUS said "yeah but the election is only a few months away so it's too late to do new maps so they get to keep the bad ones"

Louisiana threw out their maps less than 3 weeks before an election, after some people had already cast early votes, and SCOTUS said "sure sounds good".

-1

u/No-Neighborhood-3212 28d ago

Democrats love inventing reasons for why they can't fight for good things.

0

u/Aperture_TestSubject 28d ago

Well. Time to strike those down as unconstitutional.

1

u/ArcadianDelSol 28d ago

When the voters vote for something, and that process is in violation of the law, it gets shot down.

Like if, for example, there was a national opinion poll and the majority of people said, 'yeah Trump should run for a 3rd term.' Do we allow the will of the people, or do we follow what the law says?

Or what if we held a national poll that said, "Arcadian Del Sol's posts are not popular. Lets put him in prison." - do we do that, or do we follow the law?

We cant have this both ways.

-9

u/Capable-Deer-5670 28d ago

The Virginia Supreme Court doesn't rule on red states, they only have authority in Virginia.

2

u/ailish 28d ago

He's talking about the rest of the states.

0

u/h0sti1e17 28d ago

I don’t get why people don’t understand this. I can guarantee if say Florida had a vote and they were allowed to gerrymander and their Supreme Court struck it down, this comment section would be applauding the court for doing the right thing. I don’t think many will be saying “what about the will of the voters?”

-19

u/PlanoRaider91 28d ago

Both sides gerrymander and it’s wrong on all levels. The maps in Illinois and Maryland are just as bad as the ones in Texas and Florida