Dems and the Wood Chipper or Dems in the Wood Chipper?
Virginia Democrats could face blowback after their drive for maximalist gerrymandering
On April 21, Virginia voters narrowly approved a statewide referendum that sets in motion a mid-decade redistricting effort aimed at shifting Virginia’s Congressional delegation from its current 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans to 10 Democrats and 1 Republican. I previously wrote about this effort in “Release the SpanKraken!: Virginia Democrats’ cartographic creature extends a tangle of tentacles from the DC suburbs that its mighty mandibles might masticate four GOP representatives.” Voter approval of the referendum has been regarded as a major victory for the state’s Democrats. Here, we’ll ask about the potential for the referendum to become a self-affixed “KICK ME” sign—damaging Democrats by [1] Energizing Republicans; [2] Failing on Election Day; [3] Inviting judicial override; [4] Damaging Governor Spanberger’s credibility; and [5] Offering justification to Republican gerrymandering in other states.
[1] THE REFERENDUM MAY HAVE ANGERED AND ENERGIZED VIRGINIA REPUBLICANS TO A SURPRISING DEGREE.
Despite a massive effort by Democrats and little response from Republicans, the referendum barely passed statewide. Democrats spent around $70 million on this referendum, made Barack Obama a 24/7 presence on TV and web, worded the referendum in such a way as to invite judicial overturn, and still only won by a 3-percent margin, compared with Governor Abigail Spanberger’s 15-percent margin five months earlier.
Analysts will ponder how much ill will was engendered by the use of the word “fairness” on the ballot measure and in pro-redistricting advertising. Despite a judicial principle that ballot measures ought to be worded in neutral fashion, the April 21 ballot explicitly stated that the purpose of redistricting was to “restore fairness” to the state’s Congressional district map. This measure is designed to discard a map where Republicans currently hold 45% of the seats in favor of a map where Republicans seem on course to hold only 9% of the seats—in a state that cast 46% of its votes for Trump in 2024, where Republicans held all three statewide elected offices until three months ago, and where 48.5% of the state’s voters voted “no” on this referendum.
Paraphrasing the famous quote attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamomoto after Pearl Harbor, Virginia Democrats may have “awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” We’ll see.
[2] IF IMPLEMENTED, THE GERRYMANDER MAY HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT.
Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics wrote of the referendum and gerrymander: “I actually don't think it matters that much.” His are not the words of a random blogger. After the 2020 Census, the Virginia Supreme Court appointed Trende and political scientist Bernie Grofman to draw the current nonpartisan Congressional District map that Democrats intend to scrap before the 2026 election. Trende’s observations appeared in a series of posts on X (starting here).
Summing up Trende’s logic:
Democrats might have increased their seats in 2026 beyond their current 6-5 majority without the gerrymander.
It’s not a forgone conclusion that the new map will actually yield a 10-1 Democratic majority in 2026.
Thus, if implemented, the redistricting scheme might yield only 2 or 3 additional Democratic seats in 2026—with the impact in 2028 and 2030 even more difficult difficult to gauge today.
Attempting to draw a 10-1 map in a 55-45 state creates some districts with fragile Democratic majorities that Trend noted could “really collapse” on Democrats in a good Republican year.
[3] COURTS MIGHT INVALIDATE THE REFERENDUM, HANDING VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS A HUMILIATING FAILURE.
If overturned, the attempt to gerrymander may leave Democrats with little more than lost goodwill and embarrassment. On April 22, Tazewell County Judge Jack Hurley ruled that the state cannot certify the results of the referendum because of concerns that the referendum process itself may have violated one or more state laws. On April 28, despite pleas by the Attorney General’s office and by the state’s Democratic Party, the Virginia Supreme Court refused to pause Judge Hurley’s ruling. Thus, the redistricting scheme is on hold until the Virginia Supreme Court judges the merits of the arguments presented before Judge Hurley.
Right before the referendum, my friend and colleague Chuck Blahous was interviewed on potential legal challenges to the Virginia Democrats’ redistricting plan. Chuck focused heavily on the map’s lack of “compactness”—the geographic integrity of the districts, as opposed to the tentacular form of the proposed Virginia districts.
[4] GOVERNOR SPANBERGER’S RAPID SHIFT FROM ANTI-GERRYMANDER TO GUNG-HO-GERRYMANDER MAY HAVE DAMAGED HER STANDING WITH VIRGINIA VOTERS.
In 2019, then-Representative Spanberger wrote: “Opposing gerrymandering should be a bipartisan priority.” As governor, however, she spearheaded the nation’s most ostentatious gerrymandering effort.
Spanberger won the gubernatorial election last November by 15 percentage points, but her popularity has plunged since taking office. University of Virginia analyst Larry Sabato called her drop in popularity “stunning.” One can speculate on how much of her decline emanated from the highly visible redistricting effort.
[NOTE: A year ago, in the left-of-center Persuasion substack, I cited Spanberger as a paragon of Democratic Party moderation. Won’t be doing that again.]
[5] VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS’ MAXIMALIST GERRYMANDERING MAY PROMPT STRONGER RED-STATE REACTIONS THAN WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN THE CASE.
Virginia Democrats argue, not without merit, that their gerrymandering effort was a response to Republican mid-decade gerrymandering in Texas and elsewhere. However, the extremes to which Virginia Democrats went in their map-drawing may well escalate how far Republican states will go in states that they control. Florida Republicans will likely cite Virginia as justification for their proposed 2026 redistricting, just as Virginia Democrats cited Texas. Whether either of these claims is real or merely pretext is for you to decide.
The capacity for red states to respond to Virginia could become turbo-charged by the April 29 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. In essence, the High Court struck down Congressional districts based on race. While the case addressed the Louisiana map in particular, it could open the gates for more snap redistricting in other states.
REMY’S “GERRYMANDERING”
And here’s political humorist Remy Munsifi’s new song, “Gerrymandering”—aimed at the practice itself and not at either political party, specifically. Stylistically, it reminds me of Bob Dylan’s “Subterranean Homesick Blues” or Jerry Lee Lewis’s “Great Balls of Fire!”
I am always amazed at the lack of self-awareness of Democrats when discussing gerrymandering. One only has to look at New England to see how well the Democrats do gerrymandering and how long they have been at it. In an area of the country where the Democrat/Republican vote is about 57/43 there is not one Republican house member. Nothing like any “Red” state part of the Country. Maybe Republicans has cough on and the Democrats are unhappy with the rules they have been playing by.
I have long suggested that SCOTUS demand better district drawing. They barely even enforce the current rule about compactness.
So. Lets build a districting algorithm. Just a few rules.
1. Equal population. A current rule. +/- 1% would work
2. Contiguous, with additional rule about islands and such.
3. Compact.
These first three are already sCOTUS 'rules' but frequently 3 is ignored.
4. Follow current jurisdictional lines as much as possible. Villages, townships, vities, counties should not be unnecessarily cut up.
5. Following 1-4, have a computer program draw 20 possible districting maps that have the smallest overall perimeter miles. Let the legislature pick one.