The Virginia Supreme Court heard upwards of two hours of back-and-forth this morning to determine whether the General Assembly “violated procedural rules by placing the constitutional amendment before voters to authorize mid-decade redistricting,” Gary D. Robertson and David A. Lieb reported. The results netted pro-abortion Democrats four additional congressional seats, turning what is a narrow 6-5 Democrat advantage into what would be a whopping 10-1 lead.
Joe Dobson explained how it would be done.
The proposed map disperses slivers of Northern Virginia, a densely populated, wealthy liberal suburb of Washington, D.C., throughout the state. According to the Virginia Public Access Project, the only remaining safely Republican seat is in the southwestern part of the state
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
On April 22, after a hearing earlier that day, Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. issued an order enjoining the Virginia Department of Elections from certifying the results of the special election. Pro-abortion Democrat Attorney General Jay Jones quickly announced plans to file an appeal and a motion to stay the order.
On February13, the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the special election to take place, reserving the right to rule on the merits of the case after the vote. On April 21, it narrowly passed, 51% to 48%.
NBC News’s Jane C. Timm’s account was fair, noting “Attorneys for the Democrats in the case were peppered with tough questions by the justices, signaling some skepticism of their arguments.” She went on, observing
Virginia’s entrance into the redistricting wars last fall surprised many, as it took years for the state to use the same constitutional amendment process to form a bipartisan redistricting commission in 2020. State lawmakers also reopened an existing special legislative session to first propose the amendment.
During Monday’s arguments, justices pressed Democrats on whether a special session could be reopened at any time. Democrats argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in enforcing legislative rules and that special sessions do not last past the terms of the sitting lawmakers.
That “tough line of questioning” drew applause from opponents of the referendum.
“Today’s oral argument was promising,” said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project Action. “The Virginia Supreme Court appeared ready to defend the rule of law by upholding the Circuit Court and preventing the implementation of these highly gerrymandered, partisan maps.”
Prior to the oral arguments, Cayce Myers, a professor at Virginia Tech, told CBS 6 reporter Cameron Thompson
“The Constitution prescribes a way by which a ballot referendum can occur. Generally speaking, the ballot referendum has to pass through the legislature, there has to be an intervening election, and then there’s another passing of the vote, and then it goes on the ballot. That process, by just looking at it from a constitutional perspective, looks like a long process. This process was very fast because there was a special session. …If the court were to find that the process was not done correctly, that does overturn an election in which a majority of people voted a particular way.”
Background
The day after the vote Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said, “Democrats only managed to squeak out a narrow 3-point victory despite burning tens of millions in cash and manipulating voters with misleading ballot language. Every step of the way, Democrats lied and deceived Virginians to push forward what has always been illegal under state law, and today’s decision once again reaffirms that.”
Gruters added, “This ruling is a major victory for Virginians. Democrats attempted to force an unconstitutional scheme to tilt congressional maps in their favor, but the court recognized it for what it is — a blatant power grab.”
The ballot measure “sought to amend Virginia’s constitution so that lawmakers could redraw the state’s House map, overriding a 2020 amendment that created a bipartisan commission to handle redistricting,” according to Joe Walsh and Jacob Rosen.
The Democrats, all pro-abortion and in control of both houses of the Virginia General Assembly, simply drew new maps more to their liking.
Judge Hurley wrote that the amendment was invalid from the beginning—void ab initio—because the amendment process itself violated the Virginia Constitution.
For example, Judge Hurley found that the Democrat-controlled General Assembly failed to follow mandatory multi‑session requirements for constitutional amendments; “submitted a flagrantly misleading question to the voters”; early voting began less than 90 days after legislative approval of the amendment; and “violate[d] the Form of Laws clause…both because it embraces more than one object and because its title does not accurately describe its subject matter.”
Meanwhile, “at least three lawsuits are moving forward in an effort to block or invalidate the referendum, including one that goes to the heart of how the amendment reached the ballot,” Markus Schmidt reported.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.
