By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has declined Virginia’s request to reinstate a congressional map that would have benefited Democrats, marking a setback in the state’s redistricting efforts. This decision follows a state Supreme Court ruling that struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment concerning the map’s creation, citing procedural issues with ballot placement. The Virginia attorney general criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s action, viewing it as part of a broader trend undermining voting rights, while state Republicans praised the decision as upholding the rule of law.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to decline Virginia’s plea to reinstate a congressional map favoring Democrats has ignited a firestorm of frustration and accusations of hypocrisy. Many in Virginia feel that their democratic process has been undermined, particularly after voters approved a reform process that led to a new map, only to have it overturned by a state court and then left in limbo by the nation’s highest court. The sentiment is that the will of the people has been disregarded, replaced by what some perceive as a rigid adherence to technicalities over substance.
This situation strikes a chord because it feels like a stark contrast to how similar issues have been handled in other states, particularly those with Republican-drawn maps. There’s a palpable sense that the Supreme Court has been more willing to intervene and uphold aggressively gerrymandered districts in other instances, while refusing to even consider a case where a state was actively trying to correct a process that had been voter-approved. This perceived inconsistency fuels the anger and the feeling that the deck is stacked against fair representation.
The core of the issue, for many Virginians, lies in the belief that the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down decisions that have been directly approved by the citizens of a state. The idea that a voter-approved reform process can be so easily dismissed by judicial review, especially when the motivation behind the original map was to push back against years of entrenched gerrymandering, feels fundamentally undemocratic. This has led to accusations of a “corrupt court” and “bought judges.”
The legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene centers on the principle of judicial review, a cornerstone of American jurisprudence established in *Marbury v. Madison*. This principle grants federal courts the authority to examine whether state actions align with federal law and the Constitution. However, in this specific instance, the Supreme Court did not issue a definitive ruling on the merits of Virginia’s case. Instead, their decision to not intervene effectively allows the lower court’s ruling to stand.
The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the voter-approved map was based on the argument that the process used to place the amendment on the ballot did not adhere to Virginia’s own constitutional rules. This highlights a crucial distinction: even if the outcome is desirable or supported by voters, the procedural integrity of how that outcome was achieved can still be challenged and invalidated if it violates state or federal law. This is where the frustration for many lies, as they see this as a technicality overriding a clear popular mandate.
Arguments suggest that the Virginia Constitution’s requirements for passing this specific type of amendment were met. The constitution stipulated that the General Assembly had to pass the amendment twice, with an election in between – a standard process for constitutional amendments. The contention arises not from a lack of legislative approval, but from the timing of the second legislative vote. Critics argue that the state court imposed a stricter interpretation of the timeline than was previously established or mandated by clear precedent, essentially creating a new rule rather than applying an existing one.
There’s a strong sentiment that this situation is not about partisan politics but about a perceived pattern of selective intervention by the Supreme Court. When considering cases where redistricting maps have been challenged on federal grounds, such as violations of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a willingness to engage. However, when the issue involves a state’s internal constitutional processes and procedures, and there’s no direct conflict with federal law, the Court has largely opted to stay out. This difference in approach is what many find to be inconsistent and unfair.
The notion that the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision was a matter of state law, not federal, is a key point. The U.S. Supreme Court’s reluctance to overrule a state Supreme Court’s interpretation of its own state constitution is a generally accepted principle. However, this doesn’t alleviate the frustration for those who believe the state court’s interpretation was overly strict or politically motivated, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of how other redistricting disputes have been handled.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Virginia’s appeal leaves the lower court’s decision intact. This means the congressional map that was overturned remains invalid. The situation leaves many Virginians feeling disenfranchised and questioning the integrity of the legal system when it comes to fair representation and the power of the people’s vote. The call for Virginia to potentially ignore the ruling, similar to how some Republican-controlled states have been accused of disregarding court orders, reflects a deep well of anger and a desire to assert the will of the voters, even if it means challenging established legal norms.