SouthernWorldwide.com – The Virginia Supreme Court’s recent decision to invalidate a Democrat-backed gerrymandering referendum has been lauded as a courageous and correct move. This ruling preserves Virginia’s existing 6-5 Democrat-Republican congressional map, preventing the implementation of a more heavily skewed 10-1 Democrat map that was devised by the party. The reaction from leftists to this decision has been described as extreme, yet it offers a stark warning about the potential consequences should they regain national power.
Governor Abigail Spanberger, who campaigned on a platform of moderation and focused on economic issues, revealed a more radical stance upon taking office. She immediately ceased Virginia’s cooperation with ICE. Subsequently, leftist legislators introduced measures to prosecute ICE agents, an action viewed as an insurrectionary challenge to federal authority. Spanberger has reportedly supported this radical legislative agenda, which includes tax hikes and policies perceived as lenient on crime, and has also backed the gerrymandering efforts, a stance that contrasts with former President Barack Obama’s previous criticisms of gerrymandering.
The article contends that for decades, the Left has attempted to influence redistricting through legal challenges in states where they have been unable to achieve their goals through traditional gerrymandering. Examples cited include cases in Alabama, Texas, and Louisiana, where lawsuits sought to enforce what the author describes as illegal and unconstitutional race-based redistricting, resulting in the election of members of Congress deemed less effective.
Significant financial resources, reportedly over $60 million, were invested by leftists in an effort to push through the Virginia referendum. A key procedural issue arose because early voting had commenced before the legislature officially voted on sending the referendum to the voters. The Virginia Constitution mandates two separate assembly votes with an intervening election before a referendum can be put before the electorate. Democrats argued that the first vote had occurred prior to the election, despite early voting already being in progress for the election that Spanberger ultimately won.
DAVID MARCUS: VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS STEP ON A $70M RAKE AND NOW THEY’RE CRYING
Many, including former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, had warned that this plan was unconstitutional. However, these warnings were reportedly disregarded by Democrats. A trial court judge initially blocked the referendum, but the then-Attorney General Jay Jones, described as a radical leftist, argued that the Virginia Supreme Court could not rule on the referendum’s legality until after it had been completed, meaning after voters had cast their ballots. The Supreme Court, at that point, agreed to allow the referendum to proceed as Jones had requested.
The referendum narrowly passed, and subsequently, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding its constitutionality. In a 4-3 decision, authored by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, who was appointed to the Court of Appeals by then-Governor Mark Warner (a Democrat), the Supreme Court invalidated the referendum. The core takeaway from this decision is that while legislatures possess the authority to redraw electoral maps and engage in gerrymandering, such practices must not be race-based and must adhere to the state’s laws and constitution.
Baca juga di sini: Cruise Passenger Dies After Falling Overboard from Balcony
The ruling by the Supreme Court provoked strong reactions from the Left. Jones reportedly criticized the decision as politically motivated, a statement the author finds restrained given Jones’s past alleged sentiments about political opponents. Senator Tim Kaine also voiced opposition, asserting that the Supreme Court should have ruled before the referendum. This, the author points out, contradicts the fact that the justices followed Jones’s own request to permit the referendum before ruling on its legality. Some individuals on the left suggested that Governor Spanberger should disregard the court’s decision, while another proposed a more radical measure that would undermine Virginia’s judiciary.
JONATHAN TURLEY: EX-CONSERVATIVE ICON JOINS LEFT’S RUTHLESS COURT-PACKING SCHEME
Quinn Yeargain, a law professor at Michigan State University, reportedly proposed lowering the retirement age for justices to 54, the age of the youngest justice in the majority. This would necessitate the retirement of the entire court, allowing the leftist legislature to appoint a new bench that could then rehear the case, potentially leading to the referendum’s approval. An alternative, described as a fantasy, involved challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s independent redistricting commission, which voters had approved in 2020.
Fortunately, the article suggests that a sufficient number of pragmatic Virginia Democrats prevented this “insanity” from progressing. One individual reportedly characterized the plan as “schizo hopium.” Despite the failure of this plan, the author believes it serves as an important lesson. The article poses a hypothetical scenario: if Democrats were to achieve control of the House, Senate, and the White House, their persistent criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court would likely continue, especially if the justices decline to hear Jones’s appeal of the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling.
The article posits that the Left desires to expand the U.S. Supreme Court by adding at least four justices. While Virginia has, for the moment, avoided the path that many Democrats allegedly wished to take, the author warns that if radical Democrats assume power, as they did in 2021, they would not hesitate to proceed down that path, potentially leading the entire nation with them.
The article concludes with a call to action: “Vote accordingly.”
CLICK FOR MORE FROM MIKE DAVIS
