Thread by @realjusthuman

🧵This VA Supreme Court Opinion is straight fire for ~30 pages.

"From Madison’s era to the present, political parties of every stripe have offered if-by-whiskey arguments supporting partisan gerrymandering."

"Virginians voted by a wide margin [in 2020] to reform the redistricting process in the Commonwealth in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering."

"Under the 2020 amendment, if this bipartisan commission could not reach a consensus, the responsibility to achieve the amendment’s ultimate goal — ridding political partisanship as much as possible from the redistricting task — would become the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court of Virginia."

"In 2021[] when the task fell to us[] we unanimously ordered that the prior district maps be replaced with wholly new maps that commentators across a wide spectrum of political views later deemed to be free of partisan bias."

"We understood then, as we do today, that “[n]o tenet of free government is more fundamental than fairness in voting and representation.”"

That's something that has been overlooked in much of the discussion about this fight: the VA Supreme Court is how we got the map we have now, and what Dems were trying to do is throw that one out in favor of a brazenly gerrymandered one.

This fight was always headed back to that court, and they were always highly unlikely to approve the demolition of a map they (the court) put in just five years ago.

Of course, this also highlights the partisanship of the court, as 3 justices were willing to toss it, regardless of the constitutional violations that the opportunity to do so arose out of.

"These new districts replace the existing nonpartisan map (representing districts split 6-5 between the two major political parties) with a highly partisan gerrymandered map (representing expected districts divided 10-1 between the two major political parties)."

Glad to see the court call it what it is.

"Under the proposed new map, approximately 47% of Virginians that voted for representatives of one of the major political parties in the last congressional election would now be represented by 9% of Virginia’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives — while the approximately 51% of Virginians that voted for the other major political party would now be represented by 91% of Virginia’s congressional delegation."

"Sitting in our seat of judgment in 1782, Judge Wythe laid down the two cornerstones of judicial review: the “duty” to declare the constitutional boundaries of political power and the courage to “fearlessly” protect them."

BOOM
"Consistent with this Virginia tradition, “[t]he judiciary department has the power, and it is its duty, to pass upon the validity of a constitutional enactment when put in force” by legally questionable means."

BOOM
"the judiciary has the ultimate “authority to determine the validity of the proposal, submission, or ratification of constitutional amendments.”"

BOOM
"“Where restrictions are imposed in the Constitution by express language or necessary implication upon the power of the General Assembly, the restrictions may not be ignored.”"

"It is fair to ask whether we could have or should have reviewed the constitutionality of the proposed amendment prior to it being presented to the voters. But it is not a question the Commonwealth should ask"

ZING!

"...it might be tempting for the Commonwealth to think that the final vote implicitly stacks the deck in its favor — perhaps enough so that the exercise of any judicial review could be viewed as an ultra vires effort to overturn the will of the people. If this supposition were true []then judicial review of allegedly unconstitutional procedures used to adopt a constitutional amendment would not exist in the Commonwealth of Virginia."

KAPOW!

As regards Dems' insane definition of what constitutes an intervening-election:

"Under [the Commonwealth's] thesis, early Virginia voters unknowingly forfeited their constitutionally protected opportunity to vote for or against delegates who favor or disfavor amending the Constitution by 14 not anticipating a legislative vote on a constitutional amendment four days before the last day of voting."

"The Commonwealth’s position finds no support from the text of Article XII, Section 1 or the historical meaning of the term “election.”"

"Before evaluating the exegesis of the term “election” by legal scholars and courts, it is worth observing that the Commonwealth’s view would be unrecognizable to the average citizen."

BAM!

A hypothetical that illustrates the insanity of thier argument.

"The definition of “election” has always broadly denoted the “act of choosing.”"

"The “combined actions” that define the term “election,”[] include citizens casting votes, from the beginning of the early-voting period until Election Day, and the officers of election receiving these votes and closing the polls on “Election Day”"

"The “combined actions” definition of “election,” [] undermines the Commonwealth’s argument"

"The Commonwealth’s contest with this reasoning begins well but ends poorly. As the Commonwealth correctly observes, courts often employ linguistic presumptions. One presumes that the “same term” used in “separate statutes” has the “same meaning” unless context “indicates to the contrary.”"

"What the Commonwealth overlooks is that an opposite presumption applies when there is a “material variation in terms.”"

"Similar but not identical words, in similar but not identical contexts, should be presumed to refer to similar but not identical ideas."

"The noun phrase “general election” in Article XII, Section 1 is not the same as the verb phrase “shall be elected” in Article IV, Section 3."

"This “material variation” connotes a “variation in meaning.”"

"For these reasons, we hold that the definition of 'general election' in Article XII, Section 1 describes the combined actions of voters casting ballots and officers of election receiving those votes and closing the polls on the last day of the election. The plain and ordinary meaning of the expression matches the historical definition embraced by the courts and legal scholars."

"While the Commonwealth is free by its lights to do the right thing for the right reason, the Rule of Law requires that it be done the right way."

vacourts.gov/static/opinion…