Virginia Democrats make long-shot bid to Supreme Court to save struck-down congressional map

Virginia Democrats launched a “Hail Mary” attempt at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to reinstate the state’s Democratic-friendly congressional map.

State Attorney General Jay Jones sought to overturn the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision last week that invalidated the Democrats’ map, saying the Legislature violated procedural rules by putting it to voters.

Mr. Jones said the state court misinterpreted the meaning of “election day” in its ruling. He said federal judges must correct that.

“By forcing the Commonwealth to conduct its congressional elections in districts different from those adopted by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional amendment that the people just ratified, the Virginia Supreme Court has deprived voters, candidates, and the Commonwealth of their right to lawfully enacted congressional districts,” he said in his brief.

His filing asks the justices to keep the Democrats’ card in place and give the high court a chance to decide whether it wants to take up the case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave Mr. Jay’s opponents until Thursday to file a response to the motion.

The U.S. Supreme Court also weighed in on Monday, issuing a ruling that emboldened Alabama Republicans in their efforts to redraw their state’s borders to erase a Democratic-held district.

The justices, in a brief order, erased a lower court ruling that required the state to use a map featuring two majority black — and therefore Democratic — congressional seats. The high court cited its ruling late last month in the Louisiana Voting Rights Act case as reason to erase the racial gerrymander.

However, getting the justices involved in the Virginia case will be a much more difficult task for Democrats, given that the issue in that case involved the state’s procedures for elections and referendums.

At stake are up to four additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that Democrats could gain if their map prevails. They are considering a 10-1 split in the state delegation, up from the current 6-5 majority they currently hold.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature proposed a referendum last month, and it narrowly won.

But the state Supreme Court said the legislature violated the state constitution’s requirement that there be an interim election between the two votes in the general assembly to put the measure on the ballot.

In a 4-3 decision, the court said that because early voting had already begun last fall, an election was underway and therefore there had been no election in the meantime.

Mr. Jones, echoing the state Supreme Court minority, said it was a distortion of Election Day, which they said under state law refers only to the specific day when voting is supposed to end.

He said federal law also treats Election Day as a single event, so judges have reason to get involved in what was considered a primarily state matter.

The lawsuit is one of several last-ditch ideas that have been floated in the wake of last week’s ruling.

Another idea was for the Legislature to impose a new, lower mandatory retirement age on the Supreme Court, which would automatically oust members and give Democrats in the legislature the opportunity to fill those seats — and get a new ruling.

In addition to turning a political war into a nuclear attack, the idea would also test the state’s calendar, which calls for primaries in August, with polls on June 18.

Election administrators must finalize those ballots by May 28, Mr. Jones told the justices.

“This court should not allow the Virginia Supreme Court to short-circuit this process by overturning the Commonwealth’s legally adopted maps at the last minute,” he wrote.

But the majority of the state Supreme Court, in its ruling last week, emphasized that it was Mr. Jones himself who caused the lack of time.

He had urged the state court to wait until after the April 21 referendum before ruling on the legality of the case.

Redistricting was triggered last year by Texas, where the Legislature redrew its maps to give the GOP a chance at up to five of its seats. California then fought back with a voter-approved map that Democrats hope will give them five seats.

North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri then produced more GOP-friendly maps, and Virginia was expected to be the great equalizer, erasing Republican gains.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the redrawn maps of Texas and California to stand.

Then the justices introduced a new problem late last month when they ruled that states don’t need to go to great lengths to attract districts favorable to minority voters — and Democrats — unless there is clear evidence of ongoing discrimination.

The move overturned a Louisiana map that had reserved two of the state’s six seats for black voters.

Republicans are now aiming for a map that would reduce that number to just one black – and Democratic – seat.

Monday’s high court action to erase Alabama’s ruling could end up erasing one of that state’s two majority-black seats, giving the GOP a possible 6-1 advantage in the state.

The court said the logic of the Louisiana ruling also applied in Alabama.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the three court appointees in their dissent.

She pointed out that just a few years ago, the high court endorsed the idea that Alabama should have two majority-black “opportunity districts.” And she said the court in the Louisiana case affirmed that the previous Alabama case remained good law.

And she said it was too late in the process to shake up the state map anyway.

“The court today unceremoniously rejects the district court’s carefully researched and supported finding of discriminatory intent and careful relief order, without any solid basis for doing so and without regard for the confusion that will surely result,” she wrote.