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 map was overturned by the state Supreme Court.
The judges made no comment and the legal outcome was not a surprise.
The United States Supreme Court does not have the power to review or overturn the decisions of state judges interpreting their state’s constitution – unless the decision is based on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
But Virginia’s decision was a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters cast ballots and narrowly approved a new electoral map that would favor Democrats in 10 of 11 congressional districts.
This would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Worse still for Democrats, the legal setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case backed Republicans.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled Southern states to dismantle districts drawn to black Democrats.
Over the next two weeks, the GOP flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.
The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision highlighted a procedural flaw that concerned the definition of an “election.”
To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must pass the proposal twice: once before the “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to voters.
Last fall, Democrats proposed amending the state Constitution to allow for mid-decade redistricting.
However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly missed the first approval because it occurred on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.
At that point, they said, about 40 percent of voters had cast early ballots.
In defense of the Legislature, state lawyers said the proposed amendment was approved before Election Day, which is consistent with the state Constitution.
But the majority explained that “the noun “election” must be distinguished from the noun phrase “election day.”
He reasoned that because early voters had already voted before the constitutional amendment was passed, the proposal was not approved before the election.
The dissenters stated that the election took place on “election day” and that the proposition was adopted before that date.
Attorneys for the state took that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on Election Day.
But the Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment.
The result is that a state amendment that was approved twice in both houses of the legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.
The state says it will use the current map, which has elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.
