Wednesday, May 13, 2026

STOOO-pid: The Ds' VA redistricting gamble is the botch of botches, upturning the Ds' gloating and making them highly visible national losers


As Dan Crenshaw explains to the likes of Rahm Emmanuel and Bill Maher (who claim, respectively, that the nationwide gerrymandering mess "all started in Texas" and that "Republicans are winning the gerrymander war"), "Democrats have been winning this battle for a looong time."

On the contrary — to repeat a post written two days ago by Damian Bennett — the Lone Star State's gerrymandering has been in response to massive gerrymandering in Democratic states, notably Illinois, New York, and California, not to mention multiple states in New England, which turns out to be a political monoculture. "Republican voters make up 40% of New England. Democrats control the district lines."  

In addition, as a recent meme puts it, "The Democrats welcomed 20 million illegals into America in order to change the census for voting"… And it's the Republicans who are accused of gerrymandering?!?! 


Isn't that evidence, MSM — whose members are always repeating Democrats' denials of election fraud being anything serious enough to warrant investigation — of some form of cheating in American elections?! 




Our old buddy Damian Bennett, who lives in Virginia himself, has much more to add today::
My previous [contribution] laid out the timeline of the Ds' pre-gloat, vote gloat, full gloat, then -- gloat to SCOVA goat. However, before Rs start farting in public, please note SCOVA nullified the April 21 Referendum by a 4-3 ruling. That's how close the Ds came.

In all of this I have not read ANYONE address the Ds' bizarre theory for VA redistricting. Please read again the Referendum ballot Q:
 
Q: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily [!?] adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness [!?] in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes [!?] for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?

Please note that this is NOT the actual amendment language, it is a purported distillation of a legislative referral.* As a matter of law, Qs are not enshrined into Constitutional law followed by a Yes. The amendment language itself never appeared on the ballot. Does the ballot Q accurately represent the actual amendment language, which can be found here? No.
* Virginia uses the "legislative referral" method of amending its Constitution. An amendment is introduced as a legislative resolution, [the exact same resolution in its original form] must be approved by legislators during two separate sessions, and then approved by a majority of Virginia voters at the next general election.

Let's break down the actual ballot Q:
  1. A Constitution is bedrock law, the fundamental law of a polity. It evokes permanency. It is above the sand-shifting of legislating policy or the gamesmanship of politics. The idea of a Constitutional amendment solely for the purposes of an incidental political win is antithetical to the very idea of a Constitution based on principles, tradition and precedent, uncolored by partisanship.
  2. A 'temporary' amendment to permanent law is contradictory, incompatible with and deleterious to stable governance.
  3. The purposive language 'restore fairness' of the Referendum Q NEVER appears in the actual amendment, which reads: 
    • The Commonwealth shall be reapportioned into electoral districts in accordance with this section and Section 6-A in the year 2021 and every ten years thereafter, except that the General Assembly shall be authorized to modify one or more congressional districts at any point following the adoption of a decennial reapportionment law, but prior to the next decennial census, in the event that any State of the United States of America conducts a redistricting of such state's congressional districts at any point following that state's adoption of a decennial reapportionment law for any purpose other than (i) the completion of the state's decennial redistricting in response to a federal census and reapportionment mandated by the Constitution of the United States and established in federal law or (ii) as ordered by any state or federal court to remedy an unlawful or unconstitutional district map.
      [This is conditional language. It does not explain, much less give, the purpose or intended effect of the amendment. Based on the amendment language, the Virginia General Assembly could "modify one or more congressional districts" following the recent CA gerrymander, which clearly contravenes the unspecified 'fairness' the Referndum Q refers to and the amendment is meant to achieve.]
      Any such decennial reapportionment law, or reapportionment law modifying one or more congressional districts, shall take effect immediately and not be subject to the limitations contained in Article IV, Section 13, of this Constitution.
  4. The Referendum Q does not posit that VA elections are unfair. The 'fairness' the Referendum seeks to restore lies elsewhere, beyond the jurisdiction of the state and the interests of Virginians. How has it been construed that Virginians should forfeit their own fair Constitution-compliant electoral districts  so as to right 'unfair' redistricting in some other state? What other perceived wrongs elsewhere will Virginians next be called on to redress at the expense of peaceably abiding under established Commonwealth law? 
  5. There is no guarantee that redistricting VA will produce the 'fairness' the Referendum Q posits to restore in 'the upcoming elections'. The point of this exercise is a specific result, scil. 'restore fairness' at the national level. The language of the Referendum suggests the amendment remedy (10D/1R) could remain in force until it achieves its purpose. 'Upcoming elections' means 2026 and 2028 or might also mean any future election cycle where the desired 'fairness' is seen in need of restoration (see next).
  6. The Referendum Q provides no mechanism for "ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes". The purpose and actionable language of the Referendum Q is to 'restore fairness'. The wording of the Referendum Q certainly suggests that the ensured resumption of "Virginia's standard redistricting process" is contingent on the stated goal (scil. 'restore fairness') being met. However, the amendment language does provide a very specific operational window:
    • The authorization in Article II, Section 6 authorizing the General Assembly to modify one or more congressional districts at any point following adoption of a decennial reapportionment law in the event that any State of the United States of America conducts a redistricting of such state's congressional districts at any point following that state's adoption of a decennial reapportionment law shall be limited to making such modifications between January 1, 2025, and October 31, 2030, in response to actions taken by another state between January 1, 2025, and October 31, 2030.
  7. The Referendum's redistricting (10D/1R) WILL stay in place till at least 2030 and possibly beyond (viz. #4 supra) regardless of any developments on the national 'fairness' front (even were all red state redistrictings thrown out by their various courts). Given the purposive political theory of the ballot Q, there's no reason to believe the amendment window would not itself be revisited and subject to extension by amendment. 
The actual amendment is conditional and procedural with no stated purpose. This is important, because the ballot Q asks voters to vote on a specific purpose (i.e., 'restore fairness') something absent from the amendment. The April 21 vote was thrown out on procedural flaws. The 'purpose' has not yet been tested in court, but it is hard to imagine any state court ruling in favor of intramural redistricting over the sovereign representation of its own citizenry. [Pause.] Then again, 'money, guns, and lawyers' is the new DNC order of settlement.

Keep in mind that Virginia Ds had access to the 'best' legal minds and scholars, think tanks and consultants, internal polling, lots of loot, and the DNC Brainiacs when drafting their rape of the Commonwealth Constitution and framing the rape in the language of the ballot Q. And still they made a complete flustercuck of it. This speaks to competence in law and the obligations of law.
The Ds are twisting and writhing like a cut snake, biting everyone and anything in reach. SPOILER: Cut snakes eventually die.
The Ds' VA redistricting gamble is the botch of botches. It is a disaster, not merely because it failed, but because it upturned the Ds' gloating and made them highly visible national losers. In March the smart money was predicting Hakeem Jeffries would be the next House speaker. Ds were +6 on the generic ballot (down from +18 earlier), only needing to win the House by a generalized 3 pts. 
After the VA fail and all the heated rhetoric, now the Ds are +3 (within MOE, toss-up territory) on the generic ballot. Had Hakeem not bragged on swinging his big dick and kept it in his pants big bat, well, with gas at $4.50/G, he could have coasted into November. But Hakeem is big king STOOO-pid in the kingdom of stooooo-PIDs.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)