Supreme Court turns away Virginia Democrats seeking to reinstate new voting map
WASHINGTON— The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal by Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.
The judges did not comment and the legal outcome was no surprise.
The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or overturn decisions by state judges interpreting the state constitution—unless the decision is based on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
But Virginia’s decision came as a political shock, especially after 3 million voters cast ballots and narrowly approved a new electoral map that favored Democrats in 10 of 11 congressional districts.
This represented a four-seat increase for Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Worse for Democrats, the court defeat in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana case favored Republicans.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and left Republican-controlled states in the South free to dissolve districts that had been drawn in favor of Black Democrats.
In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.
The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw that changed the definition of “election.”
To change the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must pass the proposal twice; one before the “general elections” and the other after the election. It is then presented to voters.
Last fall, Democrats proposed amending the state Constitution to allow redistricting in the middle of the decade.
But state judges voted 4-3 to reject the General Assembly’s initial approval because it occurred on Oct. 31 last year, just five days before the election.
By then, about 40 percent of voters had voted early, they said.
State attorneys defending the Legislature said the proposed amendment was approved before Election Day in accordance with the state Constitution.
However, the majority declared that “the noun ‘election’ should be separated from the noun phrase ‘election day’.”
The court reasoned that the proposal was not approved before the election because early voters had already voted before the constitutional amendment was first adopted.
Opponents said that the election was held “on election day” and that the proposal was accepted before that date.
The state’s attorneys also took that view in their appeal, arguing that under federal law the election would be held on election day.
However, the Supreme Court rejected the objection without comment.
As a result, the state amendment, which had been approved twice in both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote, was ruled to fail.
The state tells the House of Representatives it will use the current map, which elects Democrats in six districts and Republicans in five.
