Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

People at voting booths.

A clear breakdown of voter ID laws under the Constitution, federal statutes, and court rulings—plus analysis of new Trump administration proposals to impose nationwide voter identification requirements.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


Few issues generate more heat and are less understood than voter ID.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less