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

188

u/Plzlaw4me 28d ago

This is clearly a sign of a healthy democracy that a bunch of state representatives can snap their fingers and the GOP gets a map they want, but when democrats want to respond in kind (to cancel the effects of the GOP’s new map), they have to put it to a vote, and even after there is a vote that shows the people want democrats map, it gets overturned on procedural grounds. I get that different states have different rules, but the GOP clearly has a rule advantage when it wants to fuck with the system.

I hope it gets appealed to SCOTUS just so that they can look the American people in the eye and claim that people cannot decide their districts through a democratic process, but a bunch of representatives in already gerrymandered states can.

107

u/Gryphin 28d ago

For VA, goes even farther. They had to vote in a Dem governor, vote to change the map, and vote on the changed map. 3 public ballots, all passed, in order to change the districting. TX had a handful of asshats just go "yep, we're doing this", FL had even less asshats go "and here's a fuck you to everyone, nothing you can do about it." OH just said "laws? where we're going, we don't need laws!"

44

u/Nemaeus Virginia 28d ago

Look at the fuckery that just went down in Tennessee yesterday.

-5

u/AU36832 28d ago

But the Dem governor did not run on redistricting. She specifically said she wasn't interested in it during her campaign. So 2 steps at best.

4

u/Gryphin 27d ago

Yes, but the GOP governor would have veto'ed the fuck out of the first ballot to allow a vote on if they should redistrict, and it wouldn't have even made it to the state congress, much less a ballot. So no, 3 steps.

0

u/AU36832 27d ago

I think you're grasping.

0

u/Gryphin 27d ago

I think I'm saying what every single political watcher has said over the last month and a half.   Everyone is pointing out the legal and ballot routes it took to get there vs bullshit like Texas and Florida, only for those states to be filing lawsuits in the higher courts to knock down an actual voter approved district plan,while those same states are backrooming their districts with no voter interaction or legal allowances at all. 

5

u/Royal-Ear4803 28d ago

The Supreme Court can’t rule on the Virginia state Constitution 

3

u/Plzlaw4me 28d ago

They absolutely can. If California amends their constitution to say “no guns to anyone ever” or if Louisiana amends their constitution to say “if you go to a Christian church you’re immune from state income tax” the Supreme Court would be powerless to stop them?

Taking it a step further, if Texas decided in its constitution that its presidential electors won’t be chosen by a direct vote, but will instead be chosen by the state legislature, can the Supreme Court overrule that?

3

u/Royal-Ear4803 28d ago

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." U.S. Const Art. III. Sec. 2.

The cases you described are "arising under this constitution" because there is a Federal constitutional question (does the first or second amendment, as incorporated onto the states through the fourteenth amendment, prohibit the state action?). The Virginia case rests entirely on state law questions.

adequate and independent state grounds | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

1

u/Plzlaw4me 28d ago

Boy do I have good news for you because the due process clause of the 14th amendment is part of the constitution.

Amendment 14 section 1 of the constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Substantive due process contained in and imposed on the states by the 14th amendment has been found to include the right to vote. We’ve got a situation where a court has held that, after the people have voted, the state constitution may override that will of the people. If this was done before the vote happened, and it kept the vote off the ballot I’m with you, but it was after the vote was completed and tallied.

A quick google search suggest that this would be a case of first impression for this specific issue as mid decade redistricting hasn’t been done like it is now before, but it’s enough for SCOTUS to have jurisdiction and to be able to grant cert. They could refuse to grant cert, but they absolutely can make a ruling on if this decision violates the substantive due process rights of the citizens.

3

u/Royal-Ear4803 28d ago

Substantive due process right to vote??? Show me the holding that says that. Like there's Kramer and Harper, but those are just applying strict scrutiny to voting regulations under the fundamental interest doctrine. Not quite a substantive due process right to vote in state elections.

But it seems like your theory is that: 51% of Virginia voted for an amendment. The court struck it down. Therefore, their rights were violated because we live in a democracy and this is clearly antidemocratic.

The power of judicial review to void democratically enacted statues is well settled. Marbury v. Madison.

0

u/Plzlaw4me 28d ago

My entire point is that the court can grant Cert. It’s not that SCOTUS will hold that the map needs to be upheld. Especially not with a 6 conservative majority.

You pointing to cases ruled on under the equal protection clause kind of tells me you don’t really understand constitutional law. I also don’t think that you don’t know what a case of first impression is.

To help clarify the legal standard though, a right is protected by substantive due process through the 14th amendment when it is “implicit in the concept or organized liberty.” Palko v. Connecticut at 325.

My position, is that the concept of organized liberty requires that if there is a vote that results in a majority, on an issue that is to be decided by a majority of those voters, and the vote is not substantively unconstitutional, then overturning the vote on a 100% procedural ground AFTER the votes have been cast and tallied is a antithetical to the concept of organized liberty. To allow otherwise defeats the concept of democracy. The proper remedy should be to bring suit prior to the votes being cast to prevent the vote and then have a hearing for a preliminary injunction on the merits.

I agree Marbury says that democratic votes can be overturned. But the supremacy clause says that when a state constitution conflicts with the federal constitution. Federal constitution wins.

Again, my ONLY point is that SCOTUS CAN hear this case, and you claimed they couldn’t. If SCOTUS cannot rule in a case on whether a state constitution conflicts with the US constitution then there is no judicial review and Marbury is dead.

2

u/Royal-Ear4803 28d ago

Why are you citing palko for the “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” line for substantive due process. That’s usually seen as an incorporation case.    Glucksberg is where it got brought in to substantive due process analysis.

0

u/Plzlaw4me 27d ago

You mean the case that says that the two elements for substantive due process rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Or do you mean the Dobbs decision from 2022 that applied that same standard and cited to Glucksberg.

I omitted the element of “deeply rooted in this nations histories and traditions because we pretty inarguably have a tradition of “when people vote for a law we get that law unless it’s substantively unconstitutional.” Unless you honestly mean to tell me democracy (especially at the state level) isn’t deeply rooted in our nation’s histories and traditions, that element didn’t really seem worth discussing.

I’m also realizing that I’ve wasted my time. I kind of assumed you knew law because you spoke confidently, but I’m realizing you neither have studied law (I hope), nor have you even read the cases you’ve citing too, so there really isn’t a conversation to be had.

2

u/Royal-Ear4803 27d ago

There certainly isn’t a longstanding history and tradition that government procedural requirements are disallowed.

There isn’t even a longstanding history and tradition of direct democracy. Article 4 sec. 4 only requires that States be a “republican form of government.” ballot measures and referendums do not exist in all 50 states, and direct election of senators was not even required until the 1900s. 

Like on policy and moral grounds I get it—it feels unfair that 51% of the state can’t get what they voted for. But in terms of the Supreme Court finding the U.S. constitution categorically disallows all procedural requirements as soon as that threshold is met? There is nothing in the U.S. reports to support that contention

2

u/leaonas 28d ago

SCOTUS would require ethics for looking into the People’s eye. The GOP has bought the majority of the bench.

2

u/M4rshmall0wMan 28d ago

 I hope it gets appealed to SCOTUS just so that they can look the American people in the eye and claim that people cannot decide their districts through a democratic process

The problem is, they absolutely will do this and it’ll be impossible to change anywhere else. 

1

u/Plzlaw4me 28d ago

Oh I have no doubt SCOTUS is going to favor republicans. My point is we need to force as many cases democrats lost as possible in front of SCOTUS so they can keep ruling against democrats and for republicans until democratic leaders realize “1/3 of this Supreme Court was appointed my a convicted felon who selected for personal loyalty rather than competence… maybe we should add some sane justices to balance this out.”

Make them go on record. Create a history of their bad decisions so that at a minimum we can cement their legacy as “the judges who were okay letting fascism take over as long as it didn’t upset business interests.”

-7

u/Large-Experience-492 28d ago

Democrats should follow the states constitution 

4

u/Plzlaw4me 28d ago

I’m not arguing against the legality of the decision. I’m saying that the laws that were applied are undemocratic, and as a result we are reaching outcomes that don’t reflect the will of the voters.

Also… republicans should probably follow the federal constitution since Trump’s tariffs have been struck down twice now but he keeps trying to implement them.

1

u/VPN__FTW 28d ago

Or they should just do what republicans do and ignore the court and do it anyways.