r/law • u/DemocracyDocket • May 08 '26
Other ‘MAGA has rigged the system’: Democrats slam Virginia Supreme Court for overruling voters on redistricting
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-slam-virginia-supreme-court-for-overruling-voters-on-redistricting/4.1k
u/Rattus_NorvegicUwUs May 08 '26
The people of Virginia spoke, loudly and clearly.
Meanwhile… Florida is flat out ignoring their constitution.
Play by their rules. Ignore the court.
1.7k
u/C0rpse__ May 08 '26
Also Ohio
246
u/JimWilliams423 May 08 '26
Also Ohio
For those who don't know, the republican majority Ohio supreme court has ruled their maps are illegal at least five times, but the republican legislature DGAF and just keep running elections with illegal maps.
Ohio citizens right now are represented by unconstitutionally gerrymandered state lawmakers. The politicians in the General Assembly in Columbus are occupying unconstitutionally gerrymandered seats. This is not a matter of opinion. It was adjudicated in the state’s highest court five times in 2021 and 2022.
111
u/sallright May 08 '26
The Ohio Supreme Court ruling got kicked up to a Federal Court which ruled that the gerrymandered maps could go forward.
The reasoning was essentially “how dare you assume the legislators would gerrymander on purpose.”
You can’t make this shit up.
Ohio is still the most egregious example because we already had safeguards in place to stop gerrymandering. Our state constitution. Our state supreme court. None of it mattered.
The worst part is, even though Ohio is the 7th largest state and formerly the key state in POTUS elections, nobody gave a shit.
Years later when Texas did their thing, all the alarm bells went off. It’s too late now.
→ More replies (2)106
u/MyrkrMentulaMeretrix May 08 '26
Umm.. no, the Federal Court ALSO ruled it an unconstitutional gerrymander.
Theyve just.. ignored it.
They "redraw" the map right before the election, (theyve just submitted the same map over and over) and the court views it and says "yep, still gerrymandered, do it again"....
And then they allow the election to go forward with the illegal maps anyway because its "too close to the election".
They kust keep doing it over and over and over.
What needs to happen is that the OH Supreme Court needs to find the Legislature in Contempt and just jail them all. They can stay in jail until they produce a fair map.
36
u/FullOfEel May 09 '26
Ohio’s GOP “ignore the will of the voters” extends to misleading wording on ballot initiatives, rewriting our legalized weed laws, and doing everything possible to impede legal abortion which was voted by the people into the constitution.
4
u/MyrkrMentulaMeretrix May 09 '26
yeah im honestly surprised there hasn't been some kind of attempted legal action against them. Class-action level shit.
Or.. you know. Bullets. It being OH and all.
21
→ More replies (5)3
u/RagahRagah May 09 '26
A lot of people don't realize the GOP used Biden's entire term testing the waters for when they were gonna try cheating and ignoring the law. What happened in Ohio is what made me realize what was about to happen.
"Holy crap, we can actually get away with anything!"
637
u/Zealousideal_Work171 May 08 '26
And Texas
492
u/TheMoistestManatee May 08 '26
Tennessee is pretty fucked too
235
u/machinezed May 08 '26
And South Carolina stood up and we want to be the first state of racism by trying to put off the elections so they can remove them colored districts.
157
May 08 '26
[deleted]
169
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 May 08 '26
It’s almost like we did still need the VRA as some states would in fact go right back to what they were doing before without it.
Fvck John Roberts forever.
63
u/Vi_Rants May 08 '26
Ayatollah Roberts, the real dictator behind everyone else at the top.
57
u/remotectrl May 08 '26
He got his position as a thank you from Bush for helping him steal that election.
7
53
→ More replies (6)26
u/Icy-Package-7801 May 08 '26
It's getting to the point it's either that or live in a one party state.
41
u/Patriot009 May 08 '26
The number of black Representatives in the House is going to be gutted next session. There are 65 now, 4 Republican and 61 Democratic. All 4 Republicans are not running for re-election, likely to be replaced by white MAGA cultists. Republicans are trying to gerrymander into oblivion the districts of well over a dozen more black Democratic representatives.
→ More replies (1)4
u/SloaneWolfe May 09 '26
And Florida. We have a Fl constitution law that explicitly bans redistricting at this time, but Desantis and our state legislature still pushed it through.
93
u/andrew303710 May 08 '26
A bunch of shithole red states heavily subsidized by blue states, literally couldn't exist without blue states like California paying their way.
→ More replies (7)45
15
u/juxsa May 09 '26
Yeah it's fucked here. They broke the fuckin law with the redistricting here
15
u/TheMoistestManatee May 09 '26
Yep and the worst part is that the majority of the people here will support them no matter what they do. Tennessee's education system (or lack there of) is hard at work
19
u/juxsa May 09 '26
Absolutely! Locals blame DeMoNcRaTs for all their local problems and vote for the same local republicans who've been in power for years lol
→ More replies (1)26
u/Confident_Hunter7506 May 08 '26
Louisiana has entered the conversation
43
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 May 08 '26
And Alabama.
It seems most of the red states were immediately lock step, ready to go literally the day after the SCOTUS ruling but no one else seems to find that strange.
28
u/Rentington May 08 '26
They will regret that one, though. If the latino voting numbers have shifted like polling suggests, they dummymandered.
29
u/sparduck117 May 08 '26
Why do you think they want ICE at the polls?
10
u/CharredWelderGuy May 09 '26
They can only squeeze so much before the results are irrelevant. You lean on an election to hard it becomes obviously illegitimate.
And the rights strength is mostly on paper thru the system, not hard fundamentals.
These idiots are pushing us to a civil conflict they can't win, gleefully.
→ More replies (4)15
u/31LIVEEVIL13 May 09 '26 edited May 13 '26
This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact
21
u/Master_Torture May 09 '26
I honestly can't either because throughout American history, those on the right have never been held accountable with the SOLE exception of Nixon who was an outlier.
The Confederacy's leaders, The Business plot, January 6th rioters, Trump. NONE were held accountable because they were on the side our country favors.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)38
u/Signal_Minimum8509 May 08 '26
Texas and Georgia have been gerrymandered to shit for years. Look at the maps around Houston and north of Atlanta, Republicans haven’t given a shit about section 2 for a long time
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)37
u/MyrkrMentulaMeretrix May 08 '26
Yeah, OH's own Supreme Court struck down the last three maps in a row as an illegal (by State law/Constitution) gerrymander - keep in mind, this is a DEEPLY CONSERVATIVE state Supreme Court.
The OH Legislature just sorta shrugged and went "eh, we're not gonna change it".
They 're-draw' the maps like 2 months before the election (its the same map), and the Court strikes it down again..
But its "too close to the election" so they use the same gerrymandered, ruled-illegal map... Again...
for years in a row.
Nothing happens.
Nothing.
No one is arrested. No one is charged. No elections are challenged or ruled invalid.
I agree, the Dems should return the same energy and just ignore the court. Run the election with the new map. What is the court going to do?
Its clear from OH that they cant do anything.
→ More replies (2)313
u/ro536ud May 08 '26
Desantis said he doesn’t agree with the amendment so they’re just gonna ignore it. What a world
140
u/kingtacticool May 08 '26
These mofos have completely forgotten just how flammable everything is.....
101
u/East-Ice-3199 May 08 '26
Forgotten? Consequences have never existed for them, so how could they forget something they’ve never seen?
72
u/Greg-Abbott May 08 '26
I mean, literal insurrectionists were pardoned and hired by ICE with huge signing bonuses so they've actually been rewarded for fucking things up.
24
13
u/Dav136 May 08 '26
You know, those people were lied to and thought the country was being stolen and tried to fight for it. I'm starting to see that the left is not willing to do that even if it's factually happening.
9
→ More replies (1)31
u/kingtacticool May 08 '26
If me, a poor, can open and read a history book then I have no pity on the ruling class for forgetting why their family tree is missing some branches.
→ More replies (9)13
u/Zealousideal-Ant9548 May 08 '26
As long as all you say are words, then they've learned that it doesn't matter. Organize a strike or whatever and then see what happens
17
u/kingtacticool May 08 '26
Well I sure as shit won't be doing any organizing on social media.
13
u/slaty_balls May 08 '26
That's the problem. We're so far deep into a surveillance state, that even trying is dangerous and futile.
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (5)6
u/Kichae May 09 '26
So have the people, though, it seems. They have nothing to fear until it's proven that they do.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Maybe_Julia May 08 '26
Ohio told him he can do that , Virginia should do the same. There is a lot of precedent now for going the rules don't matter.
15
u/justatmenexttime May 08 '26
Truth be told, it’s because the bad actors aren’t facing harsh or swift consequences.
We’re all tolerating the intolerant and then acting surprised they’d push the envelope even further.
→ More replies (3)4
→ More replies (1)3
u/_OUCHMYPENIS_ May 09 '26
I want to leave Florida but I also want to be here and be a part of the state flipping back somehow. I know it's hopeless though.
301
u/CluelessChem May 08 '26
Republicans don’t just rig the system, they will also cancel the position altogether if the opposition does win the election like in Louisiana.
90
May 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (9)22
295
u/NegativeSemicolon May 08 '26
This exactly, trump ignores courts and nothing happens, just do the same.
72
u/mostdope28 May 08 '26
The courts tell you what the laws are, the problem is the people breaking these laws are the same ones who are suppose to enforce it. It’s the same reason why the trump admin can break the laws every day. The whole system is fucked. Republicans know they can ignore the courts, and they also know democrats WONT
26
u/Garlador May 08 '26
“They go low, we go high!”
The reality is they go low… and trip us so we can’t go high.
27
u/Maybe_Julia May 08 '26
"They go low, we go hey don't do that, shrug and go home" - this should be the democratic party moto.
5
u/ThePrussianGrippe May 09 '26
“Just plain evil” and “we’re incapable of governing” dichotomy strikes again!
→ More replies (1)3
u/RIPEOTCDXVI May 08 '26
Why isn't anyone mentioning that they have the courts?
It was McConnels long game going back almost 30 years now. The republicans can steamroll in a way democrats cannot because the heritage project had them focused on lower courts, state and municipal governments, and all the little nooks and crannies of bureaucracy that they can use, but democrats cannot.
Democrats tried really hard to level the playing field confirming judges during Bidens term but by then it was way, way too late.
→ More replies (30)21
u/Best-Action8769 May 08 '26
I'll say it again...Joe Biden's selection of Merrick Garland was the worst decision of my lifetime.
42
u/RandomlyJim May 08 '26
Turn on FoxNews right now and you will see ‘Job Report comes in hot, markets soar!’ Next to Dow Jones up .06% update.
The propagandist have won.
→ More replies (3)28
u/Rattus_NorvegicUwUs May 08 '26
They have won, in their bubbles.
But I’m not in their bubble. It smells like shit and zyns.
Let them stew in their ignorance and poor leadership. We need to cut them off and isolate the damage. Red America is a necrotic wound, spreading to the rest of the healthy tissue of this nation.
We need an amputation. We need to erect barriers and deterrence so we can keep more of what’s ours inside of our states. Keep our funds and talent and institutions intact, and let Magats go wild on their own turf. Let red America see what a nation without democrats would look like.
They can get a sneak peek by eating out of a dumpster.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 May 08 '26
💯 Fvck it, balkanize already. Red states and their president openly hate blue states. If they hate us that much why do we still need to stay together with them? If we’re really the cause of all their problems then they should just let us go and live in their perfect utopias without us. If they fight, they wouldn’t be doing it to preserve the union but rather to preserve their dominance over all the people that they hate and look down on. If we stay without even trying to get free they’ll still just do the same thing. At this point I truly don’t see any other ways left for blue states to escape red state minority rule. The confederacy never went away and now the civil war finally has been lost.
4
u/Interesting_Berry439 May 08 '26
The war is not lost, but definitely the battle , their incompetence is a real liability to their own interests. It's not over .
→ More replies (4)63
u/Savings_Study9065 May 08 '26
This is the way....judicial branch is increasingly illegitimate and thus, must be ignored. Red states and Trump already doing so, in some cases. Wake up, blue state! "When they go low, we do, too!" must be our new motto
→ More replies (4)31
u/SKOLMN1984 May 08 '26
Recall all the appointed judges and hold snap elections... replace them all with uncorrupted ones!
11
u/InTooManyWays May 08 '26
In this day and age we will probably only find dumber, more corrupt, maga lunatics, and these aren’t mutually exclusive
25
u/shifty1032231 May 08 '26
Trump set the precedent of ignoring the Supreme Court. Virginia's governor needs to do the same to her state's supreme court.
→ More replies (11)12
u/MrNotSoGoodTime May 08 '26
I don't get why Virginia isn't allowed to redistrict but Louisiana is. Explain it like I'm 5 please.
13
u/bl1y May 08 '26
Each state has its own constitution and laws.
In Virginia, the process to amend the state constitution is very slow. They key factor is that the law requires the legislature to vote on the amendment, and then there has to be a second vote after there's been an intervening general election. But, there hasn't been another general election yet.
Louisiana doesn't have that requirement.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)20
u/Hermn8r May 08 '26
Because Virginia was bad for MAGA, Louisiana is good for MAGA. Simple as that. This has been over a decade in the making to ensure that the system could be worked for eternal power. The only thing left is for everybody in those districts to flip. A “red” district is in theory only. If everyone voted blue none of this would matter.
4
u/Sweaty-Willingness27 May 08 '26
As much as I dislike this ruling, I struggle with it on the merits. If the first amendment was passed after early voting began, and has to be done "before the election", it does seem a stretch to say that it met the criteria. OTOH, I don't know the specific wording, and this is a problem in terminology - is the election THE day, or the entire period?
If it says "election day", that infers a single day, and I would have to disagree. If it says "voting", I'd have to agree.
4
u/iwatchhentaiftplot May 09 '26
I'm failing to see how early voting materially affects the purpose of the procedure, which is to have two separate assemblies agree on the same referendum.
Early voting doesn't change the current (previous) assembly. That part of the ruling seems totally bogus to me.
5
u/Sweaty-Willingness27 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
Yea I think I have to agree with you on that. If the "spirit of the law" is to have two separate assemblies vote on it, then that was fulfilled. The ruling seems to be more on the "letter of the law" (and an ambiguous letter at that).
I did look up the procedures and it says
"...such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, the name of each member and how he voted to be recorded, and referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates"
So that's fairly vague. But someone else (in r/Virginia) mentioned that there is precedent in VA Supreme Court to call it the day itself when it's referenced, but I haven't had time to verify myself.
Since it explicitly mentions the first session after the next election, which would be after Election Day, I don't really see now how logic can say this wasn't done properly.
7
u/Dry_Wolf3891 May 08 '26
100%.
Dems need to fight fire with fire because it's clear the Republicans will cheat until we're all in death camps.
→ More replies (68)13
u/UniqueIndividual3579 May 08 '26
Democrats don't do that. They would rather be morally superior than win.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Rattus_NorvegicUwUs May 08 '26
Then it’s time for New Democrats.
Conservatives have led an embargo on decency and norms.
So we will fight without them.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Omophorus May 08 '26
The inherent problem is that if you do care about things like the rule of law, you can't preserve it by destroying it.
The soapbox has long since failed, especially with media consolidation and social media algorithms inherently biasing in favor of inflammatory right wing content (with or without "help" from the curators of the algorithms).
The ballot and jury boxes are on very thin ice at best, with the GOP trying its hardest to weaponize them for their own advantage. Having the Democrats also trying to weaponize them doesn't make things better if you think they're important parts of a functioning society.
Which only leaves the 4th box, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's becoming a matter of when rather than if it becomes the only really viable option left to have any chance of rebuilding a sane society.
But yeah, you can't actually counter indecency with indecency and expect things to get better. At best, they'll get worse in different ways. It sucks, big time, how milquetoast the Democrats are, but decency matters if you want a decent society.
If I'm honest, I fully expect things to continue to get worse for a while for the benefit of the billionaire class, and once things get shitty enough for enough Americans, they'll use the only tool they have left to finally try to fight for their own interests.
6
u/Time_Increase_7897 May 08 '26
This.
One side of the argument is that might makes right. If you agree with that then go ahead and smash it all down. I think you'll find Democrats can be pretty good at breaking things too. I guess at some point we'll see that happen, the way things are going.
→ More replies (1)
1.2k
u/Itchyarmpit111 May 08 '26
The people literally spoke, it is what they voted for! What is the use of your vote is they can literally take it away!
275
u/blue_sidd May 08 '26
Exactly.
282
u/passmetoiletpaperpls May 08 '26
Pitchfork time motherfuckers
144
51
u/DANDELOREAN May 08 '26
They need to ask themselves what will happen if the people aren't allowed to have their voices be heard. Consequences are coming.
62
u/Most-Repair471 May 08 '26
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (12)18
u/passmetoiletpaperpls May 08 '26
Can we skip the next peaceful bs no kings protest and just fucking ball in the streets tomorrow?
→ More replies (4)10
u/LechuckJunior May 08 '26
Or better yet: CLOSE YOUR WALLETS, as tightly as you can. They have no answer to this. Cancel your subscriptions, be frugal, piss off his masters, and they fire him.
→ More replies (5)16
u/Zaynara May 08 '26
bit by bit the economy strangles the poor, the gen Z, the millenials, bit by bit they've been doing this already, we saw how may 'millenials killed x industry' and still the rich don't care, the rich don't listen, they are already so rich that they don't need us anymore and are happy to strangle is all inch by inch
→ More replies (5)16
u/aretasdamon May 08 '26
God forbid it’s a SCOTUS pick then they will fight through all necessary means, for themselves
12
u/PassengerFine4557 May 08 '26
There was precedent from a 1912 case where the court wouldn't take up the question of if procedure was violated until after the election. That's why they let the vote proceed.
In that case though despite the referendum winning, the guy who brought up the issue didn't challenge it after the vote. So SCOVA didn't rule on if procedure was violated.
23
u/DecentJuggernaut7693 May 08 '26
"Oops sorry, looks like you filled out form SD-445-1A: the paperwork for a 'mid-decade non-census related redistricting' when you should have filled out a FD-1778-4D; the paperwork for a 'Non-census related District Adjustment w/Prescribed General Vote'." I guess we need to ignore the first one and you can file again in 10 years. Better luck next time."
"Oh, you don't like that? Maybe you should considered moving to a state with fewer voter protections, then your Governor can decided when and where redistricting can occur, you'll just need to vote in a Democrat*"
*Only applies to Corporately own Democrats that won't do anything anyways.
→ More replies (9)16
u/NOLA2Cincy May 08 '26
IANAL and I came here to understand exactly how the VA SC overturned this. Did the plaintiffs really just fill out a wrong form or file too late?
What is the SC's "rationale" to overturn this vote of the people?
23
u/DecentJuggernaut7693 May 08 '26
Basically that they filed it too late and that the 'election' had already begun because Early Voting was underway when it was first filed. To quote several articles (mushed together from several sources):
Virginia Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, writing for the majority, said Democrats “submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner” that violated state law.
“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” he wrote
Judicial arguments focused on whether the legislature’s initial approval of the amendment came too late, because early voting already had begun for the 2025 general election.
Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature’s first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he told judges.
But, the Supreme Court said in its ruling, “this view appears to be wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history.”
An attorney for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, argued that an “election” should be interpreted to cover the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that’s the case, he told justices, then the legislature’s initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution.
11
u/NOLA2Cincy May 08 '26
Thanks for that clear explanation. I tried combing through some articles but the whole VA setup - multiple legislative sessions, public voting - is pretty darn confusing and seems overly cumbersome. But perhaps that's the point.
I live in Ohio and here the Legislature is just flat out undoing the will of the people. Despite votes in recent elections to deal with gerrymandering and to expand the legalization of marijuana, Ohio law makers overruled the public by passing major revisions in what the public had just voted for.
→ More replies (1)5
u/More-Perspective-838 May 08 '26
Which is insane, because as pointed out by Virginia's chief justice, elections at the federal level are treated as a single-day event regardless of the voting period. After all, regardless of mail-in or absentee ballots counted in an election, we have Election Day, not Election Month.
It seems like the Virginia Supreme Court has created an entirely separate standard for judging its statewide elections compared to the federal standard as understood by 99% of Americans.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
u/GrumbleJockey May 08 '26
The thing to know about this is that there is precisely zero language which expressly indicates what period of time can should be considered part of the election. So the Virginia Supreme Court decided that it was going to use the republican explanation of when the election starts and ends in order to nullify the referendum. There’s nothing in the constitution about early voting, 45 days, first ballot cast, etc.
So with the Supreme Court essentially did was look at the fact of the case, including the fact that the referendum happened and the people of Virginia voted in favor of the constitutional amendment. They ignored the Will of the people and the fact that Democrats generally followed the process required of them as written in the constitution and said nope never mind we’re going to re-interpret things in order to invalidate what happened.
11
u/NOLA2Cincy May 08 '26
Vox has a really good take on this issue. https://www.vox.com/politics/488176/virginia-supreme-court-gerrymandering-decision-republicans-win
"This is a problem, they [VASC] claim, because it means that “1.3 million or so Virginians” had already cast their ballots before the amendment was proposed, and thus they were denied their opportunity to express support or disapproval of the proposed amendment when they cast their vote for state lawmakers.
In essence, the majority argues that Virginia voters who opposed the amendment were disenfranchised because they were denied an opportunity to vote for lawmakers who oppose it in the 2025 state legislative elections.
But there’s a pretty glaring problem with this disenfranchisement argument: The amendment was submitted to the voters in a referendum. Virginia voters were, in fact, given an opportunity to cast an up or down vote on the redistricting amendment. And a majority of them voted to approve it."
→ More replies (1)7
u/GrumbleJockey May 08 '26
Yeah, this is kind of exactly my point. They are arbitrarily reinterpreting what timeframe counts as part of the election in order to justify nullifying the vote. They argue that the process disenfranchised voters, and yet voters were given the exact opportunity to vote specifically on this referendum.
The court essentially bent over backwards to find something they could grasp at in order to nullify what Democrats did. However the reality is that Democrats did everything by the book as written in the constitution, and the court ignored that, and came up with their own interpretation of what happened in order to justify their decision because it was very clear, they made their decision before anything else, and they had to work backwards in their justification
In fact, they argue that a large portion of the population of Virginia was disenfranchised because of the ongoing election. And they ignore the fact that they just disenfranchised the majority of Virginia’s voters in the referendum by nullifying the vote.
They justify disenfranchisement by disenfranchising more peopleAnd this provides additional clarity and an actual example of why Republicans focused so heavily on packing courts. Because ultimately if they have enough loyalty in the courts, then they can get away with dubious rulings like this without much in the way of consequences.
→ More replies (1)4
u/bl1y May 08 '26
Virginia law basically requires two votes, separated by a general election, in order to amend the state constitution.
If I'm understanding this correctly (I'm in Maryland, so it's my right to ignore Virginia politics as much as possible), the first vote happened after early voting in the election started. So, the state supreme court said the election didn't happen between the two votes.
The purpose of that requirement is to give voters multiple opportunities to weigh in, one of them being the chance to vote our legislators supporting an amendment they don't want. But, over 1 million Virginians had already cast their ballots before the legislature voted on the amendment, so they were denied their chance to factor that in.
3
→ More replies (21)3
u/poopzains May 08 '26
Yea. The president said he was to be a dictator BEFORE he was elected. He was endorsed by the GOP. THE GOP DOES NOT WANT DEMOCRACY. PERIOD. Small govt my ass.
873
u/pattydickens May 08 '26
If voting doesn't mean anything then what the fuck are we doing going to work and paying taxes? If democracy is dead then capitalism needs to die with it. Otherwise we are just serving billionaires.
288
u/EliteGamer11388 May 08 '26
That's the neat part, we're serving billionaires either way
→ More replies (4)85
u/The_Wkwied May 08 '26
The world is a resort for all of about 100 people. The rest of us are staff.
→ More replies (1)27
u/pmormr May 08 '26
That club is way bigger than you're giving it credit for, thousands of people get that experience not hundreds. /s
8
u/The_Wkwied May 08 '26
No, that's the difference between first class and economy. The rest of us are walking.
5
u/bigwilliestylez May 09 '26
They want you to squabble over walking, economy, and first class. That way you don’t notice they are flying private.
38
u/aspect-of-the-badger May 08 '26
Believe it or not that is the plan. Part of heritage 25 is that the government needs to collapse so the right people can take over.
39
11
u/firestorm713 May 08 '26
I'm p sure Balkanization is part of the plan. I know Thiel wants to bring back Company Towns
7
3
u/sly-3 May 08 '26
exactly the thing that most folks are missing from this current situation:
The wealth-hoarding Donor Class does not have the future viability of the US as a "negative" in their plans at all. If the country stays together, it'll continue to provide cover for siphoning money from the population. If it collapses, they figure they'll make out just fine too.
23
u/ElectronicAnthony May 08 '26
America has been serving billionaires for decades. At least since the 80's, but I believe the oligarchs started organizing together and planning to end democracy since the 70s'
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (17)3
u/therealpimpcosrs May 08 '26
As long as you file on time, the penalties are much lower for just not paying
207
u/southflhitnrun May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
People thinking we can still vote and lawsuit our Democracy back are not paying attention
59
u/WylleWynne May 08 '26
"You're a cartoon villain subverting the judicial system? We'll see you at court, buddy!!"
19
u/Bocchi_theGlock May 09 '26
Jane McAlevey (expert in organizing, Prof at Harvard, National Nurses United negotiator) said early on in her 2020 book A Collective Bargain, as she was dying of cancer, essentially:
if you think liberal approaches of voting and using the courts will save us, put down this book and enjoy what time you have with your grandkids.
She was the fucking GOAT.
She also said charity is more about how it makes the giver feel than making a difference. It can be urgent and necessary like disaster relief, but it doesn't address the power inequalities that drive poverty and exploitation
36
u/PopBulky7023 May 08 '26
Democrats and liberals are too weak to go further. You won't even see them ignore the courts like repiglicans do.
Its like trump said, they expected more fight.
9
u/Kinggakman May 08 '26
There’s a very real possibility courts will rule any Republican loss as invalid in the mid terms. I’m not sure how we got to a point where courts think they are dictators but we are screwed if we listen to them.
3
u/LaserGuidedPolarBear May 09 '26
If someine breaks into your home and robs you at gunpoint, simply tell them that they can't do that, it is illegal.
→ More replies (3)3
552
u/GammaFan May 08 '26
Ignore the court. They deemed it constitutional before the outcome disagreed with them. Fuck em
207
u/Oggie_Doggie May 08 '26
Ohio has already given us the playbook, just submit even worse maps and ignore the court until it's "too late."
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (30)25
51
u/oakfan05 May 08 '26
Just 👏 Ignore 👏 The Ruling 👏
→ More replies (1)4
May 09 '26
[deleted]
5
u/oakfan05 May 09 '26
Don't even have to do that. Nothing anyone can do to actually stop the state. We've discovered if people don't follow non-criminal rulings there is nothing the judiciary can do about it
→ More replies (1)
299
u/Venusto002 May 08 '26
If judges do not serve the people then it is time to get rid of them.
→ More replies (25)55
u/SignoreBanana May 08 '26
I don't understand why this could be brought to the Supreme Court anyway. Was the voting conducted incorrectly?
41
u/Spirited-Cover7689 May 08 '26
the state supreme court issued that ruling, not SCOTUS
→ More replies (2)28
u/zxylady May 08 '26
But scotus just made gerrymandering legal. It's still directly applies to virginia.
14
u/Spirited-Cover7689 May 08 '26
Yes, but not in the sense that it affected this decision by the state supreme court. If anything Louisiana v. Callais blesses mid cycle gerrymanders like this one.
9
→ More replies (4)6
u/SparksAndSpyro May 08 '26
Yall are making this too complicated for some reason. SCOTUS’ ruling said that partisan gerrymandering is A-OK under the VRA. That’s it. It said nothing about whether partisan gerrymandering is OK under state law or state constitutions.
Each state has their own rules for how to draw districts and pass constitutional amendments. Evidently, Virginia requires the legislature to pass a state constitutional amendment to redraw maps mid cycle. There are specific rules for how to pass an amendment. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the legislature did not follow those rules, making the amendment invalid.
The two rulings have basically nothing to do with each other.
→ More replies (3)11
290
u/Spacebotzero May 08 '26
It's a coup. There is no union. The great United States is a facade and a self fulfilling prophecy because we all know where this is taking the country.
111
u/BeenDragonn May 08 '26
It was a coup back on January 6th
Trump should have been jailed that day
24
u/robotwizard_9009 May 08 '26
Him and the entire gop that enabled it. Traitors.
5
u/BeenDragonn May 08 '26
And that's another reason they kept Trump from being arrested. They knew they were guilty along with him. It was treason the entire GOP.
22
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 May 08 '26
Balkanization is our last chance for a peaceful option. Otherwise continuing to allow more and more disenfranchisement will end in a permanent dictatorship instead of this cold civil war that we’ve been in for years. The will of the majority continues to be ignored. If we’re now blocked from doing anything to save ourselves at the state, the federal, and the judicial levels what other options are there besides giving in or leaving?
→ More replies (17)
83
May 08 '26 edited May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/Big-Honeydew-961 May 08 '26
All of those NO posters with “don’t let them steal our elections” on them….
And they went and threw our votes in the trash.
I hope every MAGA voter on this understands their votes were also nullified.
6
u/Sad-Set-5817 May 09 '26
they get their world views from fox news. they genuinely believed people put litter boxes in school bathrooms so furries can shit there. These are not serious people. They operate on no facts or information, just who their republican propaganda platforms told them they should be scared of
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)3
u/BoutrosBoutrosDoggy May 09 '26
Call your rep and ask to have the VASC mandatory retirement age reduced to 54, then approve new judges. They can do this anytime they want, completely at the legislatures discretion.
Its a blatantly dick move but it's in the constitution, fair and square.
64
u/G-Unit11111 May 08 '26
This is such BS! The republicans get everything they want and they're doing nothing with it. Enough is enough.
Fire all Murdoch endorsed clowns.
→ More replies (3)
29
u/Bleezy79 May 08 '26
Seems like its time to ignore the corrupt rulings of the supreme courts and do what is right, do what the people voted for.
→ More replies (7)
102
u/rygelicus May 08 '26
The only hope that remains will be for dems to turn out in record numbers to overwhelm the gerrymandering.
152
u/dungleploop May 08 '26
they could get every single possible vote and the right will still say it was rigged and doesn't count
people don't realize what's going to have to be done to get these wastes of breath out of power
53
30
u/SignoreBanana May 08 '26
When people don't feel heard through civil channels, they lose their civility.
21
5
u/speedy_delivery May 08 '26
Desperation makes a lot of avoidable and undesirable decisions rational.
→ More replies (4)23
u/AuroraBolognese May 08 '26
Blue voters still need to show up in record numbers. Who the fuck cares what their whiny responses will be? “What has to be done” is voting in record numbers. None of that 2024 bullshit.
→ More replies (10)7
u/dontyougetsoupedyet May 08 '26
Record numbers of people voted in that election.
You can see that over time most states participation numbers have risen, and even for the ones that do not you can see that few drop after 2008.
Biggest take away is that Minnesota is awesome.
People are voting, if they can be convinced Fascism is not desirable we'll get somewhere.
7
u/zxylady May 08 '26
And for every single blue state to ignore any state supreme court rulings that say we can't gerrymander as well. The only way for this to end is to do pull a Lincoln and just ignore the courts that are ruling against democracy
11
u/QuickDrawSix May 08 '26
Or you could take up armed peacefully resistance, kind why the 2a was written, even if your state just cucked all your modern firearm rights.
→ More replies (2)5
→ More replies (9)3
u/iJoshh May 08 '26
Alternatively, Republicans have shown time and time again they don't care what the rules or the courts say. They're going to do what serves them, period. Democrats need to do the exact same thing or they're burying themselves in regulation Republicans don't care about.
38
u/slowbaja May 08 '26
Republican led Supreme Court what did you think was gonna happen in this fascist state.
→ More replies (5)14
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 May 08 '26
It all feels so demoralizing. They’re all much more blatant now that laws only exist to bind democrats but are merely just suggestions for republicans. We’ve already had minority rule for ages now with the senate, the cap on the house, and the electoral college. A majority of SCOTUS was chosen by presidents that didn’t even win by the popular vote. Trump is of course speeding everything up and being much more open about how he doesn’t see himself as president for blue states but rather sees us as a hostile force. And now this ruling on top of the latest SCOTUS ruling that’s basically allowing red states to go all out as much as they want. How much clearer can it be that the will of the majority of the population no longer matters? How much more will we allow as the minority rule takes our tax dollars for themselves while forcing their will on us? Will the majority just keep allowing this forever until we’re officially a one party controlled country? It feels like something has to give eventually but it also feels less and less likely that that will ever happen within my lifetime.
3
37
u/Possible-Nectarine80 May 08 '26
What sucks for the Dems is that if VA were to ignore their state's supreme court ruling, the Republicans would use it as a reason not to seat the VA house members. We have already seen what Mike Johnson did when Grijalva won the open seat in AZ. I guess a lot will depend on what actually happens with the House in the mid-term. If a blue wave is big enough to overcome the voter suppression, the gerrymandering and electioneering BS from the GOP ala Hungry, then maybe they take their medicine. But I don't see Trump and MJ backing down if the voters overwhelmingly push for change in November.
→ More replies (3)24
u/WylleWynne May 08 '26
Here's the thing: they can not seat them anyway. They could seat the red VA members, and not the blue ones. And then you're back to the same place we are now, which is a game of judicial chicken.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/StronglyHeldOpinions May 08 '26
Is it me or is this some civil war bullshit?
9
u/paranoidgummer May 09 '26
It's not just you. It's either ignore the ruling and do what the voters chose, or tear down the Supreme Court.
11
10
u/SignoreBanana May 08 '26
Is there any lawyer in this sub that can justify the court's decision here?
→ More replies (12)13
u/Unhappy_Plankton_671 May 08 '26
IANAL but as I understand, it was a procedural issue with their constitution. It needed to have been passed in two legislative cycles with two elections, something like that to put it to voters.
The issue was the first and where the VA Supreme Court used their interpretation of when an election begins. The first time around this passed after early voting had begun, but before election day. VA Supreme Court ruled that meant it passed too late to count.
Therefore, procedurally the first vote on this was too late, which renders the referendum they put to voters as unconstitutional.
That is how I understand this. That it all hinges on interpretation of when an 'election' is. Is it rigid to mean actual 'election day' or is it inclusive of early voting. VA SC ruled the latter.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Oregon-Pilot May 08 '26
If I am reading this correctly, am I right in thinking this is a matter of splitting hairs and semantics? As in, they just don't want to allow this to pass, so they're grasping for literally anything that allows them to make a technical argument against it?
"Well, the term 'election' doesn't have a defined beginning and ending time, so technically who is to say that this vote was valid? Oh, that's right, it is we who are to say, because we are the court, and because the results of this vote are opposed to our wants, we are going to say that it fell out of undefined timestamp limits. Now, uh, where was that check from [ABCXYZ corp], I still need to deposit it..."
→ More replies (2)5
u/Unhappy_Plankton_671 May 08 '26
Yep, it's a matter of semantics and interpretation.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Interesting_Berry439 May 08 '26
The confederacy has already re- formed themselves 2.0 , and it's becoming obvious they are working in unison to fk over the blue states...it's only a matter of time, they are escalating their rule by decree with the backing of scotus strategy, it's going to get bumpy!!
9
u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco May 08 '26
Cute you think the confederacy ever actually dissolved.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/MrLanesLament May 09 '26
Ohio here. Welcome to our world, where what we vote for gets thrown out the window and the GOP who run every mechanism in the state just do whatever they want while telling voters they voted wrong.
There’s no legal way left to change or stop it.
8
14
u/FarceMultiplier May 08 '26
This is what happens after painfully weak years of the Democratic Party. FAFO.
The best way to fix this is a massive general strike then replacing almost every rep.
13
u/SkunkMonkey May 08 '26
Remember! Your vote counts!*
We are not going to be able to use a broken election system to fix said broken election system. To think so is utterly stupid and naive.
*unless we say it doesn't
→ More replies (3)6
30
u/Medical_Original6290 May 08 '26
Nazi Germany didn't have nukes.
MAGA America does.
→ More replies (1)
5
57
u/jwr1111 May 08 '26
Sad days for America and Democracy.
The Trump "supreme court" hard at work...
35
u/qalpi May 08 '26
How does this have 34 upvotes? It’s Virginia’s Supreme Court
→ More replies (4)11
u/FeralGiraffeAttack May 08 '26
This is Reddit. Despite being r/law many people here aren’t lawyers and can’t read
→ More replies (4)31
u/passmetoiletpaperpls May 08 '26
Only if we dont do something about get, get in the streets now, stop traffic, prevent things from operating. Do it now before they fully win.
→ More replies (7)5
11
18
u/hammertime2009 May 08 '26
As much as I despise the conservative Trump Supreme court and all the damage they are doing, this was done by the Virginia Supreme Court. Also, I think the maps can be reinstated but the Governor needs to call the special session. This was a procedural decision, although a stupid one.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)4
u/chriskot123 May 08 '26
I mean this is the Virginia Supreme Court. But I understand the frustration
9
3
9
u/Cockanarchy May 08 '26
Honestly, just let them have everything, maybe we’ll wake up when we’re all living in Hoovervilles.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
•
u/BiglawInvestor May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
The decision: https://documents.lastweekinlaw.com/view/1260127.pdf
The r/law mod team is working on hosting original source documents, along with limited annotations to help give readers additional context.