Virginia Court Greenlights Partisan Congressional Map Amid GOP Legal Fight
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A Virginia circuit court has allowed a controversial, Democrat-backed congressional map to proceed, dismissing Republican-led legal efforts to uphold constitutional redistricting standards.
A Virginia circuit court has declined to block the implementation of a new congressional map, which was narrowly approved by voters in a recent statewide special election. This decision comes as Republicans continue their principled legal battle to overturn a redistricting plan that threatens to entrench Democratic power through questionable means.
In February, the Democrat-controlled Virginia legislature pushed through a new congressional map, contingent on voter approval, in a blatant attempt to counteract redistricting efforts in GOP-led states. The new map, crafted to benefit Democrats, could hand them up to four additional seats in Congress, further skewing representation away from the will of many Virginians.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit, rightly arguing that the Democrat-run legislature exceeded its authority by passing a constitutional amendment on redistricting. The RNC also pointed out that the so-called '10-1 map' blatantly violated compactness requirements under the state constitution, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent this partisan map from taking effect.
Despite these legitimate concerns, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond sided with the Democratic establishment, concluding that the General Assembly had the authority to pass such legislation. The court admitted the new map was less compact than its predecessor, but dismissed the compactness issue as 'fairly debatable' and ruled that the RNC's claim was unlikely to succeed.
'Many a tradition and law has been laid down in the advancement of a national quest for political power, and the winds that will blow cannot yet be known. Nonetheless, this Court knows its role is clear. It is not to assess the wisdom of public policy nor to engage in policy making from the bench,' Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland wrote in his order. 'Instead, it is to decide if those with whom we have entrusted power have exercised that power in conformance with their constitutional mandate. On this question, the Court’s answer is in the affirmative.'
The court further emphasized deference to the outcome of the election, despite ongoing concerns about the fairness of the process.
'Millions of Virginians voted in an election,' Thorne-Begland wrote. 'On the issues raised before this Court, in these early stages of the proceedings, the evidence suggests the election and the proceedings leading to it were conducted in conformance with the applicable constitutional and legal principles and controlling authorities. As such it is in the public interests to allow the amendment to take effect. Granting the extraordinary relief requested would imperil the public interests.'
Despite this setback for constitutional conservatives, the legal fight over redistricting in Virginia is far from over. Shortly after the referendum, a judge in Tazewell County recognized the flaws in the process, ruling that the legislature's constitutional amendment and the referendum were invalid, halting the implementation of the new congressional districts and issuing a preliminary injunction blocking certification of the election results. Virginia is currently appealing this much-needed ruling.