The Democrats’ Gerrymandering Gambit: A Self-Inflicted Wound

The recent decision by Virginia’s Supreme Court to invalidate a referendum on new congressional maps has left many wondering what lies ahead for the state’s Democratic Party. In a surprising move, Attorney General Jay Jones has asked the US Supreme Court to intervene in the case, potentially handing Republicans even more power over elections.

This controversy revolves around gerrymandering, a contentious issue that has long plagued American politics. To counterbalance Republican-dominated districts in other states, Virginia voters approved a referendum earlier this year to create new congressional maps that would give Democrats four additional seats in the US House of Representatives. However, the state’s Supreme Court has now invalidated this referendum, reinstating the previous maps and giving Republicans a significant advantage.

Jones’s decision to involve the federal government raises questions about his motivations. The answer lies in the Independent State Legislature Doctrine (ISLD), a discredited legal theory that seeks to limit the power of state courts in interpreting election law. By embracing this doctrine, Jones risks handing Republicans a significant advantage and potentially undermining the democratic process.

The ISLD is rooted in two provisions of the US Constitution, which suggest that federal elections should be governed by each state’s “legislature.” However, for over a century, the Supreme Court has interpreted this term to refer to whatever body has the power to make laws within a state – including the people themselves if they have the right to ballot initiatives or referendums. The ISLD would limit this interpretation to the legislative branch alone, effectively giving federal courts the final say over state election law.

In practice, relying on the ISLD could lead to a significant transfer of power from state voters to federal judges. By asking the US Supreme Court to override the decisions of Virginia’s highest court, Jones and his allies are essentially seeking to circumvent the democratic process in favor of judicial intervention.

The implications of this move are far-reaching and alarming. If the federal justices accept Jones’s arguments, it could embolden Republicans in other states to push for similar measures, further eroding the democratic process. It would also set a dangerous precedent for the role of federal courts in determining the outcome of state elections – a power that should remain firmly with the voters themselves.

This controversy serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle between state and federal power in America. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s shift to a Democratic supermajority has raised concerns about partisan manipulation at the federal level, and Jones’s decision risks exacerbating this problem by undermining the integrity of the democratic process.

Jones’s involvement with the US Supreme Court is a self-inflicted wound for Democrats. It not only risks handing Republicans a significant advantage but also undermines the very foundations of democracy itself. As this controversy unfolds, it remains to be seen whether Democrats will recover from this catastrophic mistake and salvage what little credibility they have left in the eyes of voters.