A reporter from Virginia explains what happened

[BootinUp]

Substack note by Meredith Oglivie-Thompson

AOC is close, but not quite right — and the truth is troubling enough that we don't need to overstate it.

I live in Virginia, am a reporter in Virginia and voted. Here is what actually happened.

On April 21st, Virginia held a special referendum on whether the General Assembly should be temporarily empowered to redraw the state's congressional districts. It passed — narrowly, 52 to 48, but it passed.

Yesterday, in a 4-to-3 ruling, the court struck down the referendum on procedural grounds. Not because the map was unfair or voters were misled. But because the legislature took its first vote on October 31st, after early voting had already opened — and the majority ruled that the "general election" begins not on Election Day but when early voting opens. On that basis, the entire process was deemed fatally compromised.

Here is what that ruling was not, however: settled law. The dissent was written by Chief Justice Cleo Powell, the most senior judge on the court. She argued that early voting windows shift year to year, are set administratively rather than constitutionally, and give a legislature no reliable date to track. Her conclusion: the majority had made constitutional compliance a matter of luck rather than principle, creating what she called "an infinite voting loop with no established beginning."

That is the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court saying the majority got it wrong. Many legal scholars agreed.

So here is what was voided last Friday: a statewide vote in which a majority of Virginians said yes, at a cost of $5.2 million in public funds and nearly $100 million in advocacy spending from both sides. Not because voters did anything wrong or the map was unconstitutional. But because of a procedural vote taken four days after early voting opened, which four judges decided was four days too late.

So this is not an overturned election. But a voided vote. And on a 4-to-3 ruling with the Chief Justice in dissent, that is troubling enough to say plainly.

https://substack.com/@meredithogilviethompson/note/c-256199075

[stopdiggin]

1. to the point, and accurate

and, yes - disappointment and dismay are quite sufficient - even without hyperbole and fanfare.

While there is certainly room for differing opinion - (and, as noted, legitimate dismay - and moreover regrettable turmoil) - this was not some completely outre whack decision on the part of the court. The view that once an election has already commenced ..... While leading to undesired result - is not exactly an outrageous one. And - perhaps the legislature bumbled this one?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Buckeyeblue]

2. But what isthe harm that the court is trying to rectify?

I think that is the big problem with the decision. How are Virginians harmed if, in fact, there was a procedure violation. They are more harmed by voiding the election, because a democratic process (the election) is being set aside and the overall waste of public money.

It's really a horrible decision.

[stopdiggin]

3. the 'harm' would be a precedence - where the legislature

can blunder in to the midst of an election (at what ever point/date, and for whatever reason? we'll say perhaps - an election that is not 'going' the way they wanted it to?) and institute 'changes' to benefit whatever result is desired. And - if the abridgement pointed to here was allowable - at what point does it cross the line where the legislature cannot ... ?

While I I won't argue with you over the result produced - and we can term that 'horrible' if we wish. I will continue to argue that the decision tendered here was not wholly without merit or reason. If an election is already underway ....

[BootinUp]

5. The split decision says it all.

Either way there would have been outrage. The legislature could have done better, I assume.

[intrepidity]

4. Ok, thanks for posting

I thought I was confused, but turns out I did understand what happened. And, if going strictly by the letter of the law, I can see why it was overturned. Granted, it probably would not have made any difference *in this case*, but I can see why you would not want to set such a precedent.

The fact is that those 4 days of voting (because what really is the point of an "election" if not actual people casting ballots, regardless of when the actual election date is designated. Or rather, the election date was actually a range of dates.)

It was a technicality, and they need to refine their state constitution to address it.