Anonymous #6 1d

Anything to get new blood in at this point 🙌

37

Anonymous #7 1d

Isnt that what republicans started with gerrymandering

28

Anonymous #10 1d

The reason it was struck down wasn’t gerrymandering, but rather the way they attempted to go about it was against the Virginia state constitution

-2

Anonymous #13 1d

They only struck it down after the vote succeeded though

6

Anonymous OP 1d

That doesn’t matter, you can’t go against the state constitution and expect it not to get struck down, they put the issue on the ballot like 2 weeks before the voting date, if I’m not mistaken. This also prevented early voters from casting their votes for or against said motion

5

Anonymous #13 1d

Then they should have struck it down before voting started when they had the chance

6

Anonymous #13 1d

You’re referring to them voting on it after early voting started in 2025. Yeah I’m not all that happy about it, but I understand the legal reasoning

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I will say it’s a little dumb to me b/c when you early vote, you run the risk of things happening between then and November that would’ve changed your mind. That’s why I vote in mid-to-late Oct

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Again, it had like 2 weeks before the voting due date, the court system in general is very bureaucratic and backed up, the fact it was voted on is irrelevant to the fact the way they went about it is against the state constitution

1

Anonymous OP 1d

If I’m not mistaken the Dems convinced SCOVA to let the vote proceed

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Proceed and be valid are different things though

1

Anonymous #13 1d

I’m on your side kinda. Just b/c SCOVA let the vote proceed (even tho they might’ve felt forced to) doesn’t mean it was valid. Sucks but is what it is. On to hopefully reaching 8-3 the old-fashioned way

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I feel like this midterm is going to be decided more on who can redistrict better, which is unfortunate as it won’t give a true picture of how people feel

1

Anonymous #13 1d

I mean GOP will have an edge due to gerrymandering, but public opinion should be blue enough to overcome it

1

Anonymous #13 1d

So before the vote, even though the same procedural issues had taken place the referendum was fine to vote on. After the referendum passed, all of a sudden those procedural issues invalidate the whole thing?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Not exactly, think of it more as a continuance, where the government produced enough of an argument to have merit for a case which they ended up losing later on

1

Anonymous #1 1d

The way the redistricting I don’t think there will be nearly as many purple districts as you think

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Also, the “violations” are bullshit anyway. Virginia law says it has to get passed by the legislature before and after an election. They passed it on October 31 and January 16, Election Day was November 4th

1

Anonymous OP 1d

See the issue was that by October 31, lots of people already voted early (EV started in September)

1

Anonymous OP 1d

If I’m not mistaken, the way a state constitutional amendment in Virginia must be passed is that it is proposed and then wait 2+ years before being ratified so as to prevent 1 party from coming in, changing the constitution and not giving anyone else a chance to vote against these politicians and change it

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Fwiw *I* don’t think it should’ve mattered b/c when you vote early, you assume the risk of decision-altering things happening after you vote

1

Anonymous #13 1d

There’s no two year requirement, just that two different legislatures have to vote on it

1

Anonymous #1 1d

And the whole early voting thing is duplicitous. Nationwide, republicans are trying to limit early voting to benefit them, but in this case Virginia was perfectly happy to use the fact that early voting existed to benefit them. Reps never have to play by the rules or be consistent, Dems always lose

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Florida just completely ignored an anti gerrymandering constitutional amendment in their CONSTITUTION yet democrats ade the problem? Yeah ok lil bro

6

Anonymous #10 1d

I never said that wasn’t a problem, personally I think there should be a nationwide gerrymandering ban and it should be done by an independent 3rd party/bi party commission

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Well we’re never gonna get there if republicans keep bending the rules in their favor while Dems try to take the “high road“

1

Anonymous OP 1d

You see it on both sides, trying to pin the all the bad of this political system on one side is simply illogical

1

Anonymous #10 1d

If there is a constitutional rule blocking it then a judge will prevent it from happening

2

Anonymous #2 1d

You really don’t think the Florida Republican Supreme Court won’t twist any legal definitions they can to make the gerrymandering A OK?

1

Anonymous #13 1d

There is very clearly one side that thinks gerrymandering is good and one that very clearly wants to get rid of gerrymandering nationwide. There’s no both-sides-ing this one

1

Anonymous OP 1d

That’s definitely not true, whats happening is the gov officials like it despite the populus not liking it. It’s like lobbying in that sense

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Except that Gov officials on one side are gleefully gerrymandering everywhere they can with no resistance and gov officials on the other side are trying to ban gerrymandering nationwide, banning gerrymandering in their states, refusing to gerrymander even when they can, or California and Virginia who put gerrymandering up for a vote

1

Anonymous OP 1d

California was the first state to start this trend of gerrymandering

-1

Anonymous #13 1d

That’s a load of bullshit lol. California only did it in response to Texas, and let their constituents vote on it

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Mb you right on that one

1

Anonymous OP 1d

But it still has been happening on both sides and def shouldn’t

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Let’s dig into that both sides claim. On the Republican side you have Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi all gerrymandering their maps through the legislature, no votes. Utah tried to but their Supreme Court overruled it so now their packing their court

1

Anonymous #13 1d

On the democratic side you have California and Virginia, who both had their citizens vote on it to temporarily roll back their independent redistricting commissions. You have Maryland that didn’t go through with it. New York maybe considering a not so aggressive gerrymander. Illinois maybe going to ask their voters. All of this purely in response to Republicans

1

Anonymous OP 1d

California, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin all attempted also. This also doesn’t take into account 2 things, the fact that there are more red states initially and the fact that many states are already gerrymandered, like Massachusetts who despite having a 61/36 split last election has a 9-0 split in the house

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Colorado might vote on it, Washington is considering

1

Anonymous #13 1d

There’s practically no way to draw a red district in Massachusetts

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Uhh… no they werent. Gerrymandering is a notoriously republican tactic and the minute democrats do it and MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE SIGN FOR IT, its their intention?

6

Anonymous OP 1d

It was more of an example and there def is, also you leave out the fact that Utah and Ohio were court ordered and also you falsely claim that Louisiana Alabama and Mississippi have tried to

0

Anonymous #10 1d

Again it is not a notoriously republican tactic, it is used on both sides as they see fit, take a look at Illinois for example

0

Anonymous #13 1d

This both-sides routine is getting exhausting after looking at how the south drew so many GOP seats last week

6

Anonymous #1 1d

While this instance is certainly more of a 1 sided issue it is historically a both sides issue and saying it is a completely 1 sided thing ignores all history nuance and context

0

Anonymous #13 1d

both sides have done it and that’s bad, but right now the GOP is doing it more and that is also bad

5

Anonymous #1 1d

Literally what I said

0

Anonymous #13 1d

So now you expect democrats (who have actively tried to stop gerrymandering on the state and federal level) to just lay over and lose while republicans (who started the whole mid cycle redistricting) continue gerrymandering without consequences because you find it personally distasteful?

1