By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Virginia Democrats plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state’s highest court invalidated a voter-approved redistricting measure due to constitutional violations. This ruling preserves the current congressional map, thwarting Democratic ambitions to gain several House seats in the upcoming elections. The appeal is expected to focus on the dissenting opinion regarding the definition of an “election,” framing the dispute as a matter of electoral process and voter participation. The decision is a significant setback for Democrats in the broader national redistricting battle.
Read the original article here
The Virginia Dissent Democrats, finding themselves on the losing side of a state Supreme Court decision regarding redistricting maps, are now setting their sights on the U.S. Supreme Court for an appeal. This move stems from a deep-seated frustration with the current political landscape, where the expectation is that fairness and adherence to established procedures are not universally applied. The core sentiment behind this decision is a feeling that if one side consistently bends or breaks the rules, the other side should not be penalized for considering similar tactics.
The logic behind pursuing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite reservations about its current composition, seems to be rooted in a hope that precedent or at least a semblance of judicial consistency might prevail. There’s a palpable sense that if the current court has made rulings that have benefited one political party, it might be compelled to apply similar logic, even if that logic doesn’t align with the perceived “will of the people” as interpreted by the dissenters. The idea is to present the case and see if the federal judiciary will step in, potentially forcing a reevaluation of the state’s decision.
A significant point of contention for those supporting the appeal is the perceived hypocrisy in how political battles are waged. There’s a strong feeling that Democrats have historically operated under a different set of rules, often emphasizing civility and procedure, while Republicans have been perceived as more aggressive and less constrained by tradition. This perceived imbalance fuels the desire to explore every avenue, including the Supreme Court, to level the playing field, even if the odds are viewed as stacked against them.
There’s also a debate about whether the U.S. Supreme Court has any real authority or inclination to intervene in matters of state constitutional interpretation. The general understanding expressed is that the federal Supreme Court typically doesn’t get involved in state-level judicial decisions unless there’s a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. The hope, however, is that a strong enough argument can be made that the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling, or the underlying redistricting process, somehow infringes upon federal constitutional rights, thereby creating a hook for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
The historical precedent of *Bush v. Gore* is often brought up in discussions about Supreme Court intervention in election disputes. The memory of how the U.S. Supreme Court halted a recount in Florida during the 2000 presidential election serves as both a cautionary tale and a potential model. Some might see it as an example of the court overstepping, while others might view it as a demonstration of the court’s power to shape election outcomes, a power they hope can be wielded in their favor this time.
However, there’s a significant amount of skepticism regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s willingness to take on this case, let alone rule in favor of the Virginia Dissent Democrats. Many commentators believe the current SCOTUS leans heavily to the right, and any appeal that challenges actions favored by Republican interests is likely to be summarily rejected or ruled against. The concern is that the court may simply decide to stay out of what they deem a “state matter,” particularly if intervening might create political discomfort for their perceived patrons.
The underlying frustration is that if the U.S. Supreme Court is perceived as a partisan entity, then relying on it for a fair resolution could be a futile endeavor. This leads some to suggest more direct actions, like simply proceeding with the desired redistricting plan regardless of court rulings, mirroring tactics they attribute to Republicans. The argument is that in a system where rules are selectively enforced, the best defense might be to abandon strict adherence and fight fire with fire.
There’s also the practical consideration of the timeline. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to take the case, any decision might come too late to affect upcoming elections. This adds another layer of urgency and discouragement, as the desire is to see a resolution that impacts the immediate electoral landscape, rather than a distant judicial pronouncement.
Ultimately, the decision by the Virginia Dissent Democrats to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court reflects a complex mix of strategic calculation, ideological frustration, and a dwindling faith in the impartiality of judicial processes. It’s a gamble, one that some believe is doomed to fail, while others see it as the only remaining option in a political arena they feel has become increasingly lawless. The outcome will undoubtedly be watched closely, as it could further shape perceptions of the judiciary’s role in American democracy.