SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
virginia
Blame John Roberts for This Anti-Democratic Redistricting War
It's obvious to a majority of ordinary Americans that partisan gerrymandering undermines fundamental democratic principles. If only the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court would have the courage to admit it.
Apr 25, 2026
In the short run, Democrats' victory in gerrymandering Virginia to create four new blue Congressional districts is a good thing. It will restore balance to the critical 2026 House elections to offset Republicans' Texas gerrymandering which created four new red districts.
President Donald Trump was technically right when the night before the Virginia vote he told a conference of supporters, “I don’t know if you know what gerrymandering is but it’s not good.” Of course what Trump really meant is that gerrymandering is bad when it disenfranchises Republicans but good when it disenfranchises Democrats.
Here's what we do know: partisan gerrymandering is an affront to democracy by letting politicians pick their voters instead of voters picking their politicians. Given Republicans' successful gerrymandering, the Virginia gerrymander was the least bad immediate option. As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a sharp reversal of recent establishment Democrats' attitude, "When they go low, we strike back."
But looking forward, partisan gerrymandering should be illegal. As Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent to Chief Justice John Roberts' 2019 majority ruling that partisan gerrymandering is non-judiciable, “partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people. If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government.”
You can blame John Roberts for debasing and dishonoring our democracy and irreparably damaging our system of government.
In his 5-4 majority decision in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, Roberts ruled that challenges to partisan gerrymandering are "political questions" that courts may not interfere with. Roberts may have disingenuously claimed in his confirmation hearings that he is nothing but an umpire calling balls and strikes, but in reality he changes the strike zone to favor Republicans.
Partisan gerrymandering blatantly violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Partisan gerrymandering treats voters of the then minority party in a state unequally to voters of the then majority party and gives the then majority party an unequal advantage in securing their future electoral control regardless of the will of the voters. Voters from different parties do not have an equal chance to affect the outcome of elections. As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent to Rucho a voter's constitutional equal protections rights“can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”
It's obvious to a majority of ordinary Americans that partisan gerrymandering undermines fundamental democratic principles. An August 2025 Reuters poll found that 55% of respondents, including 71% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans, thought that the partisan gerrymandering taking place in Texas and California are "bad for democracy." Regular Americans understand the dangers of partisan gerrymandering better than John Roberts in his lengthy "legal" opinion that courts can't do anything to prevent it.
Since Rucho was decided in 2019, advances in computer algorithms have enabled the majority party in a state to construct voting districts to virtually guarantee with surgical precision their own electoral victory.
If Roberts and his Republican cohorts on the Court were honest, they would consider revisiting and overturning Rucho and giving lower courts the power to devise standards for deciding if a partisan gerrymander is too much. But given the partisanship of the Republican Justices, that's unlikely to happen.
If, despite the disadvantages of partisan gerrymandering, Democrats regain control of Congress, they should enact legislation term limiting SCOTUS justices (after which they may keep their lifetime judicial tenure by taking senior status) and increasing the number of Justices from 9 to at least 12. This can be done by legislation and does not need to overcome the nearly impossible bar of a Constitutional Amendment. To protect democracy, Court reform should be a key part of Democrats' political platform.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Dems Can Learn From the Virginia Redistricting Win
There is an important lesson to be learned here and that is that there is no advantage for Democrats in not being fully anti-Trump.
Apr 22, 2026
By roughly three percentage points, voters in Virginia voted for a redistricting plan that will heavily tilt the congressional playing field toward the Democrats. With some votes still to be counted, yes took 51.5% of the vote to 48.5% for the no campaign. The new map will give the Democrats a good chance at winning 10 out of 11 Virginia congressional districts—a big shift from the current 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans in the delegation. The measure still faces legal challenges before it can go into effect.
Turnout for the referendum was roughly 89% of those who voted in the 2025 gubernatorial election. So, the overall turnout rate for the referendum was around 49%. While this is disappointing in that less than half of eligible voters went to the polls, it is a high turnout rate for a special election.
Unfortunately, there are no exit polls for the Virginia referendum, so the best we can do is look at the voting data and see what conclusions we can draw. Among the very Hispanic-Asian election districts in Northern Virginia (Fairfax, Loudoun, and Manassas Park) the pro-referendum forces did about 16 percentage points better than Kamala Harris in 2024. A strong performance among Black voters in Richmond and Hampton Roads helped put the referendum over the top. According to The Washington Post, counties that were at least 25% Black supported the measure by a 14-point margin, after backing Gov. Abigail Spanberger last November by 24 points.
The pro-referendum forces also fared well in high-income parts of the commonwealth. Opposition to the referendum was concentrated in southwestern Virginia. In many of these counties, the no campaign was able to improve on President Donald Trump’s 2024 performance.
Tuesday’s vote in Virginia will mean more Democratic representatives in Congress.
Are there lessons that the Democrats can take away from the Virginia redistricting campaign? First of all, it is important to note that a win is a win. However, there is an important lesson to be learned here and that is that there is no advantage for Democrats in not being fully anti-Trump.
When the referendum campaign began, the yes forces were portraying the vote as part of a broad effort to level the congressional playing field. The New York Times reports that:
In the first six weeks of the campaign, the “Yes” side spent $13.5 million on advertising compared with the “No” campaign’s $640,000, according to data from AdImpact, a media tracking firm. But over that time period, “Yes” did not gain ground in private polling, according to multiple people briefed on the data.
Based on the media that I saw, in the closing days of the campaign, the yes forces retooled their messaging and presented the campaign as a way to stop Trump and the MAGA forces.
Why did the pro-redistricting forces not immediately embrace a full-on anti-Trump message? We can only make educated guesses. The first is newly elected Spanberger, who had run as a middle-of-the-road Democratic centrist. Her role in the redistricting is ambiguous. Unlike Gov. Gavin Newsom in California, Spanberger did not get out in front of the campaign. This is understandable. After all, Virginia, unlike California, is a purple state. Spanberger also needs to get her legislative agenda through in Richmond.
The best symbol of Spanberger’s attitude toward the referendum is the fact that she made an ad in support of a yes vote but the ad never showed. In her statements about the referendum, the governor was uncomfortable.
Democrats also seemed to have been unprepared for the no forces’ very clever use of statements by President Barack Obama opposing gerrymandering, which created confusion in the electorate. In response, the Democrats responded with ads featuring President Obama. In an interesting twist, Obama not Trump was the president most featured in the media outreach on the referendum.
So, in the end the redistricting referendum passed by less than Spanberger won last November. While the Republicans may be able to claim some sort of a moral victory, a win is still a win. Tuesday’s vote in Virginia will mean more Democratic representatives in Congress.
Democrats have reasons to celebrate. However, they should learn the lesson from the referendum: There is nothing to gain politically by soft-pedaling their opposition to Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Virginia Voters Deal Major Blow to Trump-GOP Ploy to 'Steal the 2026 Midterms'
"Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they pushed back against a president who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress," said Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger.
Apr 22, 2026
Virginia voters on Tuesday approved a referendum that's likely to give Democrats four additional seats in the US House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections, a key victory in a gerrymandering war launched last year by President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
"Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they pushed back against a president who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress," Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, said following Tuesday's vote. "As we watched other states go along with those demands without voter input, Virginians refused to let that stand. We responded the right way: at the ballot box."
The ballot measure, which was approved by a margin of fewer than 100,000 votes, allows the Virginia constitution to 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."
The new congressional map that Virginia lawmakers approved earlier this year—prior to putting the ballot question before voters—would aggressively redraw the state's district lines to give Democrats eight safe districts. Two other districts would be competitive but Democratic-leaning, leaving Republicans with just one favorable district. Common Cause Virginia, an advocacy group that does not favor partisan gerrymandering, called the new Virginia maps "a proportionate response" to GOP redistricting in other states, including Texas.
Eric Holder, the former US attorney general and chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in response to Tuesday's result that "the mere existence of this special election stands in stark contrast to the gerrymanders forced on constituents in Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina and shows that voters are tired of Republican attempts to silence their power at the voting booth."
“Virginians’ courageous action today will have an impact far beyond the commonwealth. They didn’t just win an election—they have stopped Donald Trump’s attempt to steal the 2026 midterms in its tracks and defended the principle that elections should be fair, competitive, and decided by the people," said Holder. "Let this be a message to MAGA Republicans and the White House: enough is enough."
Democratic congressional leaders also applauded the outcome of the closely watched Virginia referendum. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in a statement that "Virginians spoke with a crystal-clear voice, voting to stop the MAGA power grab and protect the integrity of free and fair elections."
But Jeffries stressed that "this war is not over," pointing to ongoing Republican efforts to redraw Florida's congressional maps.
“If Florida Republicans proceed with this illegal scheme, they will only create more prime pick-up opportunities for Democrats, just as they did with Trump’s dummymander in Texas," said Jeffries. "We will aggressively target for defeat Mario Díaz-Balart, Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Giménez, Kat Cammack, Anna Paulina Luna, Laurel Lee, Cory Mills, and Brian Mast. We are prepared to take them all on, and we are prepared to win."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded enthusiastically to Jeffries' statement.
"Hell yes," she wrote on social media. "This is the energy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular