Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How Virginia’s move against partisan gerrymandering might be short-lived

Opinion

How Virginia’s move against partisan gerrymandering might be short-lived

"Virginia is on the cusp of historic redistricting reform," argues Brian Cannon.

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Cannon is executive director of OneVirginia2021, which i s campaigning to amend the state Constitution to create a nonpartisan redistricting commission.

Virginia is on the cusp of historic redistricting reform. The commonwealth is not known for being on the cutting edge of voting reforms, but following the success of redistricting reforms in Michigan, Colorado, Missouri, Ohio and Utah in 2018, the winds of change are blowing to the mid-Atlantic.

Democrats newly in control of the General Assembly look increasingly likely to get behind a plan for turning the Legislature's power to draw all of Virginia's political boundaries over to an independent commission. But there are a couple of ways this could happen, one much more problematic than the other.

This means there is a looming threat all Virginians should consider: Reform in time for the post-census remaking of the congressional and legislative maps in 2021 could be undone by another redistricting later in the decade.


Not only is such mid-decade redistricting widely considered hyper-partisan and bad for democracy, but it's also an all too frequent occurrence in this country. While either party can practice the dark arts of gerrymandering, the Republicans have had a pair of notable and notorious mid-decade redistricting operations in the past 20 years.

In the spring of 2003, Texas Republicans, newly empowered in the legislative majority — and under the strategic guidance of Rep. Tom Delay, then the most powerful Texan — pushed forward a mid-decade redistricting plan. This compelled a quorum-denying number of Democrats to leave the state for a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma in an attempt to thwart the GOP plan. It didn't work. The new maps further gerrymandered the state and worked to disadvantage Latino voters. And ultimately, this partisan power grab was upheld by the Supreme Court.

A decade later, in 2013, the Virginia Senate was split 20-20. The House and the governor's mansion were in Republican hands. On Martin Luther King Day, while Democratic Sen. Henry Marsh was away to attend the second inauguration of President Barack Obama, Republicans snuck through a redistricting plan with their one-day majority of 20-19. They intended to replace a Democratic gerrymander from 2011 with a Republican gerrymander.

The Senate plan ultimately died in the Republican-controlled House of Delegates thanks to a parliamentary ruling by then-Speaker Bill Howell. While this attempt didn't succeed, such a maneuver is clearly possible in Virginia.

Article 2, Section 6 of the state Constitution gives the power to redistrict to members of the Legislature. It says they "shall'' redistrict in 2011 and every subsequent 10 years. Importantly, what it doesn't say is that they "shall NOT" redistrict in years ending in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9, and 0. While we'd surely prefer there be a "shall NOT" in the document, it simply isn't present, and thus the General Assembly has an ability to make new maps beyond just years ending in "1." That's where you get mid-decade redistricting.

There are two basic paths available to the Legislature, which is now in session until early March. The first is a proposed constitutional amendment that passed overwhelmingly last February and must pass again in 2020 before going on the November ballot for voter approval. The second is a statutory approach for an advisory commission with the promise of a future amendment to address gerrymandering.

The first approach — a constitutional amendment — will stop mid-decade redistricting by either party. The enabling legislation that would need to follow its endorsement by the electorate could be repealed, but the framework of the amendment would still be in place and prevent redistricting during the 2020s.

The statutory approach would not provide that security. Whatever might get passed as a statute in 2020 would be a promise to do right in 2021 but wouldn't change the legislative power to redistrict that is inherent in Virginia's Constitution for the remainder of the decade.

Politics is a pendulum. Virginia Republicans thought they had a permanent majority in 2000 and lost in 2006. Democrats saw 2008 as an indicator of their permanent progressive majority and saw it wiped away in 2010. The 2010s have given us nothing if not political whiplash. There's no reason to believe the 2020s will be any different. Virginia Democrats take note: Passing the proposed redistricting reform constitutional amendment now is the surest way to guard against this.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less