By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Democratic strategy, suggested by The Downballot, proposed that the Virginia legislature and governor could lower the retirement age for Supreme Court judges, thereby removing them and allowing for new appointments. This new court could then rehear the redistricting case and potentially restore the invalidated map. However, Delegate Surovell has deemed this plan unworkable, citing the critical May 12 deadline for submitting new congressional maps to the state’s election system. This deadline, necessary for August primaries and mid-June early voting, would not allow sufficient time for the proposed legislative action and subsequent judicial proceedings.
Read the original article here
Trump’s big win in Virginia stems from the Democratic Party’s apparent reluctance to engage in aggressive tactics to protect four House seats. This strategic decision, or lack thereof, has left many feeling frustrated and concerned about the future of fair representation. The narrative emerging suggests that while Republican states have been actively redrawing electoral maps to their advantage – we’re talking about places like Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida – their Democratic counterparts have not matched this urgency. Virginia stands out as a particularly stark example, where Democrats, despite constituents voting for map redraws, seem to be accepting defeat.
This unwillingness to “go nuclear,” as some have put it, is a recurring theme and a source of significant dismay. The comparison is often made to past instances, such as the handling of Supreme Court nominations, where a more assertive approach might have been taken. There’s a palpable sentiment that playing by the rules, while noble in theory, has put the party and the country on a path toward what many fear is fascism. The idea is that the opposition doesn’t play by the same set of rules, and a more combative stance is necessary to counter their aggressive strategies.
The situation in Virginia is particularly galling because it’s not just about a general political strategy; it’s about the tangible loss of influence and representation. The failure to contest the unfavorable redistricting is seen as a direct concession that will likely benefit Republicans in the upcoming elections. Some comments even suggest that Democrats are “co-conspirators” in the capture of the U.S. by forces they oppose, implying that their passive approach is actively detrimental. The disappointment is evident, with many expressing weariness and a profound sense of injustice.
Furthermore, there’s a critique that the Democratic Party’s base is left feeling disillusioned, with a sense that their leaders are not fighting hard enough. This feeling is compounded by the fact that some believe the Democratic Party leadership benefits from the status quo, and a strong victory isn’t necessarily their primary objective. The argument is that “losing is winning” for them in some perverse way, as it allows them to maintain their positions without truly challenging the system. This perspective fuels the frustration and the demand for a more robust response.
The core of the issue seems to be a fundamental disagreement on strategy and a perception of cowardice within the Democratic Party. While some advocate for a more aggressive, “fight dirty” approach, others are concerned about the long-term consequences of such tactics. However, the prevailing sentiment is that the current approach is not working and is actively jeopardizing democratic principles. The very act of gerrymandering is seen as a powerful tool that, when wielded aggressively by one side, necessitates an equally strong counter-response from the other.
There’s a distinct feeling that the Democrats are constantly being outmaneuvered and that their adherence to a more “gentlemanly” approach is a strategic disadvantage. The comparison to how quickly Republican states have redrawn maps highlights this perceived lack of urgency and decisiveness. The hope that the Virginia Supreme Court might flip in the future to rectify the situation is seen as too little, too late, especially when facing immediate electoral threats. The current maps are expected to be in place for the upcoming elections, and the consequences of not fighting for them are already being felt.
Ultimately, the narrative around Trump’s win in Virginia and the Democrats’ inaction is one of missed opportunities and strategic missteps. The perceived “nuclear option” that was not taken, the failure to respond with equivalent urgency to Republican gerrymandering, and the overall sense of a lack of fight are all contributing factors to this outcome. The frustration is palpable, as many believe that the country’s future, and a non-fascist one at that, is being jeopardized by a party that seems unwilling to employ the necessary tactics to defend it. This sentiment underscores a deep desire for a more assertive and effective Democratic Party.