Virginia Democrats got what they deserved

It wasn’t just Republicans who believed this to be the case. As the Washington Examiner noted in a previous piece, a Democratic strategist revealed last week that Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D-VA) own team had reportedly warned their fellow partisans in the legislature that the process they were pursuing was legally tainted and would be highly susceptible to challenges. Legislators — led by Sen. Louise Lucas, who is now the subject of a federal investigation that originated under the Biden administration — blew off these warnings and forged ahead anyway.

This was a profoundly foolish and costly move, in more ways than one. State and national Democrats plowed tens of millions of dollars into an unconstitutional referendum, barely prevailing, despite their ubiquitous propaganda campaign, immense spending advantage, and “brazenly dishonest” ballot question, as described by the Washington Post. All for naught.

In addition to all of that cash going up in smoke, so did the astounding 10-1 Congressional map Democrats had designed for themselves, under the preposterous banner of “fairness.”

None of that determined the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision, however. The ruling was driven by the fact that Democrats violated the explicit constitutional requirements governing the passage of such amendments. Their process was unlawful. The (narrow) electoral result at the end of said process was therefore irrelevant and the fruit of a poisoned tree. The Left has erupted in fury over this outcome, churning up a blizzard of “arguments” that essentially amount to ignorant or mendacious tantrums.  Let’s consider a few of them:

1. “If the Virginia Supreme Court had legitimate concerns about this referendum, the time to stop it would have been before three million Virginians cast their ballots.”

That was the complaint of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who reportedly had concerns about the 10-1 map, which earned him an infamous “cuck chair” humiliation from Lucas echoed by many others. The problem with this critique is that it ignores the crucial fact that Democrats’ own lawyers argued that the court should not have intervened prior to the referendum taking place.

Indeed, the court sided with the Democrats on this score. Their official position was that the justices should allow the vote to happen, then review the challenges, in that order. The court agreed. Marc Elias’ hardcore partisan law group hailed the decision at the time. And now, having lost the legal fight, Democrats are reduced to griping that it’s unfair that their preferred sequence was allowed to play out.

This “will of the people” appeal comes from Attorney General Jay Jones, best known for his murder fantasies about the children of Republicans. It is also not relevant to the constitutionality of the referendum process, as stipulated in oral arguments by the legal team of… Attorney General Jay Jones.  The Democratic lawyers confirmed that the result of the vote was not legally relevant to the validity of that process.

“The fact that there’s [been] a ‘yes’ vote doesn’t tell us anything about those merits,” one justice asked the Democrats’ attorney, Matthew Seligman, referring to the validity of the constitutional challenges.

Democrats asked Virginia’s Supreme Court to put off its review of this process until after the referendum was held. They got their way. Then, after they barely survived their snap election vote by the skin of their teeth, Democrats are feigning outrage over voters supposedly being disenfranchised and betrayed by virtue of the justices assenting to the timeline Democrats had demanded in the first place. They’re doing so even after their own lawyer said the “yes” vote prevailing doesn’t impact the legal questions before the Court.

3. “Trump gets to redraw maps in his states, but the Democrats cannot do the same?”  

Thus protested podcaster and Democratic fundraiser Jim Acosta, formerly of CNN. Setting aside the inanity of the “Trump redraw” formulation, this objection is not true. Democrats did the same in California, a process they framed as retaliating against Texas. California Democrats engaged in a bare-knuckles maneuver to change their district-drawing rules, added five blue seats to their already wildly stacked map, and it was unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In short, if there’s a redistricting war, Democrats can engage in it and have already done so. They must do so legally, which they failed to do in Virginia. Axios quoted a House Democrat lamenting that “California and Virginia were supposed to be our bigger ones,” in terms of gerrymandering opportunities. Part of the reason those two states are seen as the best chances to gain blue seats in this slugfest is that Democrats have already maximized their partisan gerrymandering in states they control. They’ve been locking Republicans out of power through this method for years.

Virginia Democrats can, and perhaps will, attempt to redo their gerrymandering power-grab scheme referendum legally in advance of the 2028 cycle — though some are questioning the wisdom of the exorbitant price tag of the recent failure. For now, they seem determined to keep failing in new ways, as Jones has appealed the Virginia Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Former Republican state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who accurately read both the law and the tea leaves in this case, says this quixotic effort will smash into another legal brick wall.

“The Virginia Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Virginia constitutional disputes. Period. No exceptions,” Cuccinelli wrote. “SCOTUS will reject this out of hand.”

Adding insult to near-certain injury, Jones’ brief to the U.S. Supreme Court misspells both the words “Senators” and “Virginia.” That’s some all-star lawyering.

Meanwhile, leftist ‘thought leaders’ are melting down. Hasan Piker is talking up “violent revolution” becoming “inevitable” over unfavorable court rulings. A New York Times columnist is urging Virginia lawmakers to simply “ignore this illegitimate ruling.” A Democratic activist hailed the “creative thinking” of court-packing, in which Democrats would “lower the retirement age of justices on the VA Supreme Court, and whoosh, they all have to go. Appoint new judges, rehear the case, get a different hearing.” 

They’re tireless advocates for “democracy” and the “rule of law,” you see, and firmly opposed to authoritarianism, even if it means going full banana republic totalitarian to defeat the “authoritarians.”

For all the histrionics and deeply illiberal raging, this trap that has ensnared Virginia Democrats was entirely created and sprung by Virginia Democrats, over the reported admonitions of the Spanberger team. They could have met Indiana’s off-ramp (since punished by GOP primary voters) with a de-escalation, but chose not to, violating their own constitution in the process. If they wished to escalate successfully, they should have followed the law.