re: BREAKING: Virginia Circuit Court just ruled yesterday's redistricting Unconstitutional

quote:

---

Mr law and order sarcastically bowing to a judge trying to block a power play to subvert the actual representation of a purple state.




Yeah.. you're unbiased and impartial.

---

The main purpose of my earlier posts was to point out hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty (the malleability of the L-word)

Uuhhh what?

This is purely a state law question and it’ll get appealed to VA SC, NOT SCOTUS. The odds of it making it to scotus are virtually zero.

VA SC will of course side w Dems who have precedent on ther side. If you think this is getting overturned you’re nuts.

quote:

---

I was not speaking of either chamber. The question was specifically about the VA Supreme Court.

---

The VA Supreme Court is officially non-partisan, unlike other state supreme courts.

What I posted is accurate, please cease and desist confusing people with misinformation.

This will likely end up at the SCOTUS.

There’s almost no chance it goes to SCOTUS. It’s not clear why people keep saying this.

It’ll go to the VIRGINIA Supreme Court (because it’s clearly a state issue) and that’s where Rs chances of getting this overturned will die.

quote:

---

It’ll go to the VIRGINIA Supreme Court (because it’s clearly a state issue) and that’s where Rs chances of getting this overturned will die.

---

At least you hope so.

Have you really studied your supreme Court in Virginia? I don't care what political affiliation have you looked at their decisions, their decisions or true constitutionalist true constitutionalist my sir or ma'am. More than likely they are going to rule in favor of the referendum being illegal. I once again ask you how much have you studied the supreme Court justices on the supreme Court of Virginia?

quote:

---

Have you really studied your supreme Court in Virginia? I don't care what political affiliation have you looked at their decisions, their decisions or true constitutionalist true constitutionalist my sir or ma'am. More than likely they are going to rule in favor of the referendum being illegal. I once again ask you how much have you studied the supreme Court justices on the supreme Court of Virginia?

---

So your argument is the VA SC, who allowed the referendum to happen (after this same Tazewell judge tried to block and it was swifly crushed) will NOW, after 3mil Virginians have voted, are going to go back and say "yeah those maps were illegal"?

You cannot be this dense. You've gotta be a bot or something.

I'm borrowing the explanation below from a Facebook post made by someone I got direct commissioned in 2003. This lays out all the procedural rules broken by the Democrats to get this on the ballot.

quote:

---

Here’s a plain-English breakdown of the procedural violations that torpedoed the Democratic redistricting amendment in court today.
Judge Hurley didn’t rule on whether the new maps were fair or unfair—he ruled that Democrats broke clear constitutional rules on how you’re allowed to change the Virginia State Constitution. Each violation was fatal on its own. Every procedural safeguard in the Virginia State Constitution was ignored — and now the Democrats’ power play lies in ruins.

They snuck it into the wrong special session. Virginia law says special sessions can only cover exactly what the Governor called for—just the state budget. Democrats tried sneaking the redistricting amendment in anyway. The judge ruled it was never allowed to be there.

They skipped the required House of Delegates election. The Virginia State Constitution demands a full House election between the first and second votes so voters can weigh in with new lawmakers. They ignored that mandatory step completely. Second vote invalid.

They blew off the required 90-day public notice. State law demands the amendment be posted at every courthouse for 90 days before the second vote. They ignored it completely, so the 2026 vote didn’t count.
The ballot question was flagrantly misleading. The Virginia State Constitution requires the question to fairly describe exactly what voters are approving. Democrats used wording that made it sound like a simple “restore fairness” fix while hiding the real details. Judge called it out cold.
They held the election too soon. The Virginia State Constitution requires at least 90 days between final passage and voting. Early voting launched March 6—way too early. They started voting before the required waiting period ended.

The election bill tried to do too many things at once. Virginia law allows only one main subject per bill, clearly stated in the title. HB 1384 crammed the election date, ballot language, funding, and extra rules into one overloaded bill under a vague title. Single-subject rule violated.
The bill dictated local voting offices the legislature isn’t allowed to touch.

The Virginia State Constitution bans special laws telling cities and counties exactly where to put polling places. HB 1384 ordered specific satellite offices anyway, going beyond what the legislature is allowed to do. Judge struck it down.

Bottom line: These weren’t nitpicks—they were the Virginia State Constitution’s guardrails. Democrats tried to push straight through them anyway. Judge Hurley slammed the emergency brake hard: voided the amendment, chucked every vote from yesterday’s election, and permanently killed the new maps. The case now rockets to the Virginia Supreme Court, but right now the old maps stay locked in place. Turns out even in politics, you still gotta follow the damn rulebook. Who knew?
And to all the lawyers out there—sorry for the excessive metaphors and the runaway-freight-train energy. I know you’d rather have pinpoint citations than kegs at dry weddings, but sometimes a little color helps the rest of us picture how the Virginia State Constitution’s guardrails actually work. No offense intended!
Jon Castonguay

---

The entire reason the Virginia SC allowed this to go to a vote is that if it was voted down, the point would have been moot to begin with and no action would be needed.

Yes, the common person finds that asinine, but to the court it is better to not have to make a decision that might inadvertently lead to some unthought about weird precedent that comes about as a byproduct of making the decision.

Now we will see if they actually follow through with that train of thought or try and chicken out and hide behind the old adage of it was wrong to have done it that way, but the people have spoken and we don’t want to invalidate an election and therefore disenfranchise voters…