Virginia Supreme Court Chose Principle Over Politics
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled against a redistricting amendment that could have led to partisan gerrymandering. The court emphasized the importance of following constitutional procedures for amendments, which require more than just voter approval. This decision reinforces the principles of a constitutional republic and the need for careful consideration in altering governance rules.
- ▪The Supreme Court of Virginia invalidated a change to the state constitution regarding redistricting.
- ▪The proposed amendment had not followed the required constitutional process for amendments.
- ▪The court's decision highlighted the importance of strict compliance with constitutional procedures.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
The rules for governance are meant to be steady. They were designed to outlast any one campaign, any one governor, any one majority. In a 4–3 decision over a hotly contested redistricting amendment, the Supreme Court of Virginia proved that point. The justices invalidated a change to the state constitution that would have opened the door to partisan gerrymandering. Though narrowly approved by Virginia voters, the politicians leading the efforts had not followed the constitutional process for amendments. The case had all the modern trappings. A plan designed to tilt congressional maps 10–1 in favor of one party; a ballot question wrapped in language about “restoring fairness;” and a narrow, statewide “yes” vote.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Real Clear Policy.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Real Clear Policy
