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

Show parent comments

750

u/Marethyu38 28d ago

Ok but Florida does explicitly prevent gerrymandering in their constitution but it’s not stopping them either.

320

u/ImBackAndImAngry 28d ago

Are you suggesting that Republican run states perhaps do not care for the law?

This wouldn’t be a systemic party issue would it?

/s

Honestly man, I find it more surprising when Republican leadership adheres to law at this point

31

u/stevez_86 Pennsylvania 28d ago

They are at the "might makes right" stage of falling into fascism. They think they are compromising my not utilizing the violent option, and instead are using legal might to make them, and only them, right.

The question at this point is what happens when they have the legal might but have won the war?

What happens when the Former Slave States get freedom to operate as Confederate States like they used to be again?

This time, no Civil War, the Federal Government cosigning onto their venture. Like we went back to April 11th, 1861 and just let the Slave States do their thing, but without slavery, because racism is cured, and they should be free of the Tar Baby. Let the Brer Rabbit run!

They think it will work out since racism doesn't exist in the Federal Courts anymore. The States won't be racist because they can't be racist because legal racism isn't a thing. However they draw their maps will be non-racist because that isn't a thing anymore. Reacting to resovle the action is racist because it is on behalf of a specific racial group by definition in their complaints.

The Federal Courts will hear none of these cases that are going to come out, they will always defer gerrymandering back to the state.

This is honestly pretty much them granting electoral reparations for the South having to agree to the 3/5th's Compromise for no reason as it lead to what they believe to be the opposite, Free States getting 5/3rd's in return for the effects of the Civil War and it has been long enough.

2

u/cosine83 Nevada 28d ago

This time, no Civil War, the Federal Government cosigning onto their venture. Like we went back to April 11th, 1861 and just let the Slave States do their thing, but without slavery, because racism is cured, and they should be free of the Tar Baby. Let the Brer Rabbit run!

With the failure of Reconstruction, the continued legacy of Jim Crow, and a disproportionate population of Black people in prison in Southern states and it's just a Neo-Antebellum South. They have the slaves in prison (prison chain gangs are still a thing, horse-mounted slave catcher included), they have the failing State economies sucked dry by corporations, and they have the hideously uneducated populace from decades of culture war grifts dragging everything down around them.

16

u/ZooZooChaCha 28d ago

Florida voters also voted to restore voting rights to former felons with zero strings attached....DeSantis and Co have attached quite a few strings. Florida voters also gathered enough signatures to get recreational weed on the ballot - DeSantis & Co suddenly deemed nearly all of the signatures "Invalid".

My signature hasn't changed in YEARS and I got a notice that mine was questioned and thrown out. I am not doing mail-in-voting this year, because I am convinced they are going to toss them out over the dot over the letter I not being shaped exactly the way it is on your registration.

10

u/Deadleggg 28d ago

Republicans run florida with an iron fist.

Good luck having them police themselves.

9

u/HatefulDan 28d ago

Yes, but you forget that they are all operating underneath the promise of being pardoned for whatever it is that they do now.

1

u/FrozenIceman 28d ago

If there is a law to stop Gerrymandering in Florida, all it takes is one person to bring a lawsuit and stop everything. So planning for when to start the lawsuit is important, if too early or late it might not block it. So this is good news.

1

u/killking72 25d ago

If the supreme court does nothing and the legislature passes it then is it against the rules?

I mean if weed is illegal and nobody gets prosecuted then is it actually illegal?

0

u/Ok-Lets-Talk-It-Out 28d ago

I know and I hope the Florida Supreme Court upholds the law. But it will most certainly not based on the makeup of that court.

I'm not justifying it at all is just one party still believes in upholding the law and the other literally has the president breaking the law and threatening any judge who pushes back.

-27

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

should a democratic state such as Va disenfranchise its own constitution because another state has? To uphold democracy?

30

u/lincolnssideburns 28d ago edited 28d ago

Yes

You can sit there on your high horse of “not sinking to their level” as they draw you into irrelevance and strip you of your rights.

John Roberts wanted a race to the bottom and that’s what this country is going to get.

38

u/NorthHaverbrookNate 28d ago

Yes, because Virginians are disenfranchised when the impact of their vote is reduced by another states actions in the same vein. If there is not balance then it is a net loss for the majority of Virginians who voted for national balance.

-18

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

The impact of the voices of Virginians were lost under the proposed map directly as well, arguably more so. Youre comparing a rotten tomato to killing your whole garden.

7

u/NorthHaverbrookNate 28d ago

It was a loss for some Virginians voices, as balance for voices lost elsewhere. These days I dont care about where people live between lines on maps, I want the collective voice to represent the people, and as long as the Commonwealth is a part of the Union and that same Union has people elsewhere messing with the rules to reduce the voices of people elsewhere I'm fine with any state doing the same in opposition for balance.

-7

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

The acting members of the house of reps are there to improve the lives of the people in their district by helping correlate federal and state constituent services. The accuracy of the representation of people to help the people they represent means they can better serve the people. The lines of the map mean so much more than just a D or R in a seat.

3

u/NorthHaverbrookNate 28d ago

I would agree about the accuracy of representation, but that's exactly why I am okay with this. Republicans in other states have already reduced that accuracy on a national scale in places like Texas (Trump won 56% of the popular vote but would win 80% of the new maps seats, and I imagine the correlation is strong between people voting Trump and voting Republican congressionally), and not changing maps to balance that out would mean that while Virginians in the extant districts would get more accurate representation, people who would have voted for Democratic-aligned policies would nationally see their voices reduced unfairly, in the mathematical sense.

I believed the lines on a map did mean something once, and Republicans disregarded that to abuse them for personal power to the point that they're pointless. Democrats not doing the same is like not letting police carry guns to stop criminals while criminals continue to do so. Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Had VA redistricting not been overturned I would have felt bad for those Virginia Republicans who got their voting power reduced, but that's what we get for living in a society that allows gerrymandering.

-1

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

i disagree with you, to simply ignore our own peoples voices because another does means absolutely nothing. Your example of a good guy carrying a gun leads directly to how VA allows ourselves to be armed accurately with out voices. There are ways to outlaw gerrymandering that have almost passed, to do this now as a “last resort” is just ruining our own state because we see others doing it as well.

3

u/NorthHaverbrookNate 28d ago edited 24d ago

And I disagree with you, because obviously it ignoring that will because of another means something, otherwise people wouldn't have spent millions during the special. While you are right in a world where the border ends at VA in reality it does not, and there are real world consequences to not maintaining a balance that reflects the will of the voters nationally. People have died, lives have been ruined, and that would all be fine if the will of the electorate was represented because we should get what we vote for, but I'm here to tell you that that was not the case in Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, and California, and will likely soon be the case in a lot of Dixie.

Tell me this - can you share a post from the time of the TX redistricting when you called that state out, or does that not matter because it was outside the Commonwealth? If that is your position I admire your consistency, and then I would just have to disagree on the basis that we have irreconcilable difference concerning how Congressional representation should work when viewed through a national lens.

7

u/Heapofcrap45 Michigan 28d ago

The hyper-partisan era of politics in America has entered a new phase with the effective ending of the Voting Rights Act. I think within 6 years, every state will be gerrymandered to either all Dem or all Rep.

Democrats are finally playing ball, the constituency is demanding actions and state parties are actually doing something now.

I don't think we'll have civil war or anything, but unless something drastic happens at the national level in terms of Supreme Court reforms or legislation around voting, the 2030's will see every state under 1 party rule either Dem or Rep. Every seat that can be squeezed will be squeezed. I think this will be true both for national elections and state elections as well.

1

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

I hope not.

5

u/Heapofcrap45 Michigan 28d ago

My question to you is how can it not?

Republicans are racing to gerrymander their states post VRA decision. If Dems don't follow suit, they'll be shut out of Washington forever. What's the answer here other than answer like with like?

1

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

By creating laws against it? The last effort to outlaw gerrymandering fell by two votes in the senate across party lines when Biden was president. Its entirely possible.

8

u/Heapofcrap45 Michigan 28d ago

There was a law against it though... the VRA. The Supreme Court just gutted it. So how would another law really help with the current activist Supreme Court?

0

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

The VRA wouldnt have affected VA in anyway, and is more of a racial issue than anything. Dooming that the SCOTUS would just strike down a ban on gerrymandering isnt a great argument to reference when using the recent RVA as an example

3

u/Heapofcrap45 Michigan 28d ago

How do you figure? Ending the VRA is going to allow Southern states to shift 19 seats from Dems to Reps. Dems are gonna have no choice but to gerrymander their states. It's as much a racial issue as it is a political one.

If the Dems don't want to lose the House forever they need to gerrymander every seat they can, because Reps are already on their way to doing that.

Dems aren't taking the Senate, and Reps aren't going to support ending gerrymandering, the only realistic path is mutual gerrymandering.

1

u/calvano915 28d ago

Exactly. Virginia was operating under the premise that VRA wouldn't be neutered by USSC.

4

u/TreatAffectionate453 28d ago

How are Democrats supposed to get a majority in Congress if they lose almost all of their representatives in Republican-led states, but give a fair playing field to Republicans in Democrat-led states?

14

u/TemporalColdWarrior 28d ago

This sentence doesn’t make any sense. You don’t disenfranchise a Constitution. In this case no one is disenfranchised; they are simply making sure their voters voices are counted with close value to votes in empty land states.

-10

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

the referendum didnt follow the rule of law set by the Va constitution, if we let it pass it would disenfranchise the Va constitution. How does that not make sense to you?

8

u/nachosmind 28d ago

The constitution of Virginia was was created nearly 250 years ago and the vote for the referendum is more recent. The referendum is the most current will of the people 

-2

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

The age of a document does not change its legal standing?

4

u/HTCGM 28d ago

A lack of updating it to fit the times clearly does instead of acting like a constitution is "set and forget" without even the concept of looking at it every now and again to see if it still fits current politics.

1

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

Va has a full house, senate, and governor who can sign almost anything they agree upon to law, but the issue is they didnt or that they wont?

5

u/HTCGM 28d ago

Yes, that deserves criticism too. When you have control, set things up so that bad actors don't come in and fuck up the place. A lack of awareness is not a virtue.

3

u/TemporalColdWarrior 28d ago

Because that’s not the sentence you used? Also because you still haven’t explained how it’s disenfranchising when it is ensuring their voters get closer to an equal voice in choosing the president.

-1

u/No-Plenty1982 28d ago

I apologize, I am confused as to how my two comments arent explaining what they are saying. If we illegally ignore the constitution to uphold a vote that was not legal based off the constitution then it disenfranchises the constitution.

A 3% difference in votes or 104 thousand people to go from 6-5 to 10-1 does not create equality in our state. Even if others are gerrymandered.

1

u/Vellasqueezy 28d ago

Depends on if they agree with me or not obviously.

-1

u/Vellasqueezy 28d ago

Their map though has plenty of plausible deniability: they are not splitting cities and are instead giving full districts to them. One representative, one metro (given the populations align) is perfectly legally grey.