Trump says so, and he is, if he says so himself, “extraordinarily brilliant.”
It’s quite possible that Trump had “no idea what the hell they were talking about in the Referendum,” although that might say more about Trump than about the referendum.
Curiously, David Bernstein found it similarly confusing.
It’s a crude partisan move, in response to similarly crude partisan moves by Republican states. That’s not why I call the referendum awful.
Rather, it’s because the referendum was written in such a way as to entirely obscure the purpose of the vote. Moreover, instead of using neutral language, the referendum stated that its purpose is to “restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” Obviously, whether a grossly partisan gerrymander restores fairness or just adds additional unfairness is a matter of debate.
Here’s the question presented to voters:
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?
He’s right, of course, that this was a crude partisan move that came as a direct result of the far more crude partisan move by Trump to demand that states, starting with Texas, gerrymander their districts to deny their citizens the opportunity to elect a representative that reflected their views in favor of red districts that would elect Republicans in an attempt to salvage the House majority in the midterms. Trump started the fight, and as awful as it is that the battle was joined to countermand his attempt to rig the election, he left blue states with little choice but to fight back.
Notably, both California and Virginia put their flagrant gerrymandering to a vote of their citizens, whereas red states did it without regard to the will of the people. In the scheme of awful, the latter beats the former every time.
But what, exactly, was unclear about the language of the referendum? David doesn’t say, presumably because it’s too obvious to need explanation. I suspect the part that he found offensive was the “restore fairness” language, as opposed to something reflecting that it was pure partisanship gerrymandering.
Granted, that reflects a bias in the language of the referendum, as if not engaging in partisan gerrymandering was unfair in itself. But then, was it a secret that the referendum was intended as a counterbalance to Trump’s call to gerrymander districts for his benefit? Were the people of Virginia unaware of what the purpose of the referendum was? Did the multitude of promotional television commercials accomplish nothing?
Referendums are generally phrased in such a way as to promote the outcome sought by their sponsor. In this case, the purpose wasn’t to achieve a Democratic House majority, but rather to restore sort rough equilibrium in House districts after Trump and his state lackeys decided to rig the election in their favor. Is it wrong to argue that fairness compelled Virginia to act to unrig the election?
In any event, lawsuits have already been filed and a state judge has stayed enforcement of the referendum, despite the Supreme Court holding that gerrymandered districts are “nonjusticiable political questions” in Rucho v. Common Cause. But while “fair is fair” as far as Virginia retaliating for Texas and other states redistricting to better serve Trump, it’s hard to see why or how the voters of Virginia misunderstood the meaning and purpose of the referendum. And it’s good on the Dems that they sought the approval of the voters rather than imposed it by executive fiat, as did Governor Greg Abbott to prove his love for Trump.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder about the role of political consultants in this and similar actions. These are a class of people lower than “your” congressperson (“mine” is tolerable, “yours” is evil).
I’ve studied a lot of leadership styles and haven’t found one that advocates naked, “in-your-face”, “win-at-all-costs” tactics. That’s how I would classify Abigail’s actions, without reference to whether it’s justified v unjustified.
But her political consultants surely have done the math and this action in Virginia will – I guess – settle the national wrong done by Texas and others (after netting out California and Massachusetts). And those who object just don’t understand the high stakes.
An old joke from the speakers circuit comes to mind. A boy is trying to get his donkey across the bridge. Along comes a variety of persons with opinions, telling him to ride it, lead it, follow it, bribe it and etc. Along comes a political consultant who tells (with passion) the boy to carry it across the bridge. The boy follows this sage advice.
Suddenly a gust of wind blows across the bridge and the donkey is knocked off and swept away by the river. Just goes to show: if you listen to a political consultant, you are likely to lose your ass.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Obviously, the political consultants are desperate for more revenue.
If I may:
[Ed. Note: In my experience, those three words are usually followed by something. No pressure, though.]
Scott, I live in rural Virginia and have now been intentionally disenfranchised in favor of urban voters who could give a rat’s ass about the problems and concerns of rural counties. That alone is bad enough. But as you surely know, the wording of a poll is impactful, and the deceitful and manner in which this referendum was worded goes far beyond common gerrymandering. When I went to the polls and read the proposal, I was astonished that any matter as fundamental and serious as degrading voters’ rights would be submitted in such a biased manner, with the intent, and no doubt the effect, of hiding the true purpose of the vote.
With respect, the laughable argument that this type of deception is okay because it was intended to impact the balance of power in Congress to impede Trump seems beneath you. Voters are entitled to a balanced presentation of what is being voted on, and to say that the vote was about saying “yes” to “restoring fairness in the upcoming elections” without describing what precisely was being done to the voting power of rural citizens was an atrocity.
Your assumption that voters would simply ignore the language of the ballot and understand the true purpose of the vote is beneath you, especially given the closeness of the final vote, and the knowledge we have about how the wording of a poll or proposition can alter results considerably.
I’m saddened that your venom for Trump has allowed you to fall a good deal short of your traditional liberal roots by ignoring the civil rights implications of allowing this to take place. Using a biased referendum proposition to allow one class of voters to disenfranchise another class of voters seems a lot more serious to me than you try to make it appear.
I live in urban Virginia, and I’m pretty sure the rural voters couldn’t even give that much about the problems and concerns of urban counties, despite Shenandoan hospitality. But I digress.
I live in a mixed-party household, and I saw all the mailings that came in. Both parties made it very clear that this was redistricting-based disenfranchisement, and that it’d drastically shift our state’s Congressional representation away from the proportion of the popular vote. Both parties printed the “going from 6-5 to 10-1!” outcome. One party went on to profess the apocalypse with the same airhorns it usually uses, while the other emphasized the 2030 sunset year and that other states had already disenfranchised their voters the same way (with opposite results) without popular consent. At the polling place, there were grand tents on both sides of the entrance with exactly the same messaging as the mailings. To say nothing of political ads, news coverage, word-of-mouth…
The way the referendum was worded is partisan and awful, sure. But the ballot doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Everywhere but Alexandria, this was the only question on it; if you were voting, it was why. To claim that voters didn’t walk into this with eyes wide open is disingenuous.
On the one hand, I suspect your grievance about the language of the referendum is a sham to conceal your anger that it passed. Are your really claiming you didn’t understand it? The closeness of the vote suggests that it was well understood, and still passed.
On the other hand, is it fine when people are disenfranchised in favor of Trump but not when it’s against Trump? If the referendum hadn’t happened, would have have voted for the Dem just to express your outrage at Trump pushing Abbott to gerrymander for him? I doubt you would.
I think the point is that Trump chose to go down this path. This is not about being in favor of gerrymandering, but about what can be done to counter the evil of gerrymandering. Scott isn’t suggesting he liked it, but that he understood it.
Miles, you have no idea of my political persuasion. For years I was a card carrying Democrat and worked for Democrat leaders in both Albany and the federal government. Now I believe no thoughtful person can be either Democrat or Republican, and I vote for the person I think will do the best job.
I do resent having my vote devalued, however, especially by means of a plainly deceptive ballot. It’s interesting you and others assume that because I find a partisan manipulation reprehensible I must be A Republican and a Trump lover. Neither is true. But I do love old fashioned liberalism and respect for civil rights, and I thought Scott did too. I still think he does, but his dislike of Trump got in the way here.
So do you proudly support a bill that will ban all gerrymandering, and only allow a bi-partisan drawing of the maps? Most democrats have voted that way… Since you claim to have been one in the past… Waiting to hear your vociferous support…
Or is it only ok when Gov. Abbott did the exact same thing in Texas?
So, abwman, the first thing you are going to do is fully support a bill that will have a non partisan board, of equal number of republicans and democrats draw all and any future maps in a non partisan manner, and outlaw gerrymandering? You know like the ones that democrats all voted for, but no republicans did?
No?
Then shut up, and I play a tiny violin for your tears.
If you will support that in the future, now you just have to convince your republican friends. Good luck with that.