Virginia redistricting ballot measure could still be struck down after voting, experts say
Transparency shouldn't be controversial.
A contentious ballot measure in Virginia that could reshape the state’s congressional maps in favor of Democrats is facing a series of legal challenges that experts say will not be resolved even after voters cast their ballots.
Virginians are set to vote April 21 on a state constitutional amendment that would temporarily allow the legislature to redraw the state’s congressional districts before the 2030 census. Supporters say the move is necessary to counter mid-decade redistricting efforts by Republican-controlled states nationwide, while those against the measure argue the proposal is itself a partisan attempt to redraw Virginia’s map in Democrats’ favor ahead of the midterm elections, skewing representation for a state home to millions of Republicans.
One of the referendum’s critics is Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, who noted that “the ballot language is deceptive in the sense that it’s saying that it’s restoring ‘fairness.'”
“The Virginia Supreme Court has said they’re taking all these challenges and they’re taking briefing on them, and then they’re not going to decide anything until after all the votes have been cast,” Kincaid told the Washington Examiner.
Out of the numerous lawsuits against the measure, one challenge filed by Republican state Reps. John McGuire and Robert Wittman targets the wording of the language on the ballot question itself, arguing that proposing to voters that the partisan maps are to “restore fairness” misleads them about the substance of the amendment. Another lawsuit has challenged whether the legislature had the authority to begin pursuing the redistricting plan prior to the vote on the amendment.
“So it’s still a live challenge,” Kincaid said. “If any one of these different things sticks, then it would invalidate the referendum.”
The Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month cleared the way for the referendum to proceed while litigation continues. While a lower court previously struck down the amendment, the justices emphasized they were not ruling on the amendment’s legality itself, but rather allowing the election to take place first.
Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University who studies election law, told the Washington Examiner that the ballot measure’s phrasing could raise constitutional concerns due to a Supreme Court precedent requiring governments to remain neutral when presenting choices tied to congressional elections.
In its 2001 …
Transparency shouldn't be controversial.
A contentious ballot measure in Virginia that could reshape the state’s congressional maps in favor of Democrats is facing a series of legal challenges that experts say will not be resolved even after voters cast their ballots.
Virginians are set to vote April 21 on a state constitutional amendment that would temporarily allow the legislature to redraw the state’s congressional districts before the 2030 census. Supporters say the move is necessary to counter mid-decade redistricting efforts by Republican-controlled states nationwide, while those against the measure argue the proposal is itself a partisan attempt to redraw Virginia’s map in Democrats’ favor ahead of the midterm elections, skewing representation for a state home to millions of Republicans.
One of the referendum’s critics is Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, who noted that “the ballot language is deceptive in the sense that it’s saying that it’s restoring ‘fairness.'”
“The Virginia Supreme Court has said they’re taking all these challenges and they’re taking briefing on them, and then they’re not going to decide anything until after all the votes have been cast,” Kincaid told the Washington Examiner.
Out of the numerous lawsuits against the measure, one challenge filed by Republican state Reps. John McGuire and Robert Wittman targets the wording of the language on the ballot question itself, arguing that proposing to voters that the partisan maps are to “restore fairness” misleads them about the substance of the amendment. Another lawsuit has challenged whether the legislature had the authority to begin pursuing the redistricting plan prior to the vote on the amendment.
“So it’s still a live challenge,” Kincaid said. “If any one of these different things sticks, then it would invalidate the referendum.”
The Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month cleared the way for the referendum to proceed while litigation continues. While a lower court previously struck down the amendment, the justices emphasized they were not ruling on the amendment’s legality itself, but rather allowing the election to take place first.
Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University who studies election law, told the Washington Examiner that the ballot measure’s phrasing could raise constitutional concerns due to a Supreme Court precedent requiring governments to remain neutral when presenting choices tied to congressional elections.
In its 2001 …
Virginia redistricting ballot measure could still be struck down after voting, experts say
Transparency shouldn't be controversial.
A contentious ballot measure in Virginia that could reshape the state’s congressional maps in favor of Democrats is facing a series of legal challenges that experts say will not be resolved even after voters cast their ballots.
Virginians are set to vote April 21 on a state constitutional amendment that would temporarily allow the legislature to redraw the state’s congressional districts before the 2030 census. Supporters say the move is necessary to counter mid-decade redistricting efforts by Republican-controlled states nationwide, while those against the measure argue the proposal is itself a partisan attempt to redraw Virginia’s map in Democrats’ favor ahead of the midterm elections, skewing representation for a state home to millions of Republicans.
One of the referendum’s critics is Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, who noted that “the ballot language is deceptive in the sense that it’s saying that it’s restoring ‘fairness.'”
“The Virginia Supreme Court has said they’re taking all these challenges and they’re taking briefing on them, and then they’re not going to decide anything until after all the votes have been cast,” Kincaid told the Washington Examiner.
Out of the numerous lawsuits against the measure, one challenge filed by Republican state Reps. John McGuire and Robert Wittman targets the wording of the language on the ballot question itself, arguing that proposing to voters that the partisan maps are to “restore fairness” misleads them about the substance of the amendment. Another lawsuit has challenged whether the legislature had the authority to begin pursuing the redistricting plan prior to the vote on the amendment.
“So it’s still a live challenge,” Kincaid said. “If any one of these different things sticks, then it would invalidate the referendum.”
The Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month cleared the way for the referendum to proceed while litigation continues. While a lower court previously struck down the amendment, the justices emphasized they were not ruling on the amendment’s legality itself, but rather allowing the election to take place first.
Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University who studies election law, told the Washington Examiner that the ballot measure’s phrasing could raise constitutional concerns due to a Supreme Court precedent requiring governments to remain neutral when presenting choices tied to congressional elections.
In its 2001 …
0 Comments
0 Shares
35 Views
0 Reviews
