Virginia court rules in favor of Democrats in redistricting case

It was only a 3% difference, and 50% of Virginians said they were confused by the ballot question (which of course was a lie).

The vote should be invalidated, and a new vote held that reveals - and doesn’t hide - what people are actually voting for.
Why a new vote. You had everybody from Trump to Obama telling people what they were voting for.

 
And most people never heard what they said…..they only read the misleading ballot question.
Do you think it's equally misleading when voting for a candidate?

And with over $100 million spent to advertise the referendum. How did most people not hear any of that?
 
Do you think it's equally misleading when voting for a candidate?

And with over $100 million spent to advertise the referendum. now did most people not hear any of that?
Most of it was spent by the Dems, to brainwash gullible voters. That’s how they win elections. That, and the late mail ballot drops, as happened this time in Fairfax County.
 
Is this the final word..or must we go through yet some more hoops to resolve this issue.
Well...The Virginia Supreme court needs to weigh in--but it does appear that the redistricting will stand.
Like it or not, Gerrymandering is a part of American politics..and the courts will not step in.


A Virginia court ruled in favor of Democrats in a case concerning the Old Dominion’s congressional lines on Sunday, denying a last-minute Republican effort challenging Democrats’ redistricting referendum and the composition of the new House map passed by voters.

Richmond Circuit Court Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland denied a request by the Republican National Committee (RNC), Virginia GOP and others to block the results of a redistricting referendum held last week, when voters narrowly passed a set of congressional lines that gives Democrats four additional pickup opportunities in November.

The Virginia congressional delegation currently has a 6-5 Democratic edge, but the new map would give the party a 10-1 edge in November.


“This Court knows its role is clear. It is not to assess the wisdom of public policy nor to engage in policy making from the bench,” Thorne-Begland wrote. “Instead, it is to decide if those with whom we have entrusted power have exercised that power in conformance with their constitutional mandate. On this question, the Court’s answer is in the affirmative.”

When Tex-Ass redistriced, ReNaziKlans loved it. Not so much California and Virginia did it. What is gravy for the goose, is gravy for the gander.
 
So you think that is in any way the rule?
Take New York City, which is heavily democratic, but has elected republican mayors, ex: Rudy Giuliani.

Based on percentages, that should have never happened.
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
 
They did but law has to be constitutional.

Do you prefer your law to not follow a state's constitution?
I don't believe any party ought to have a say on silencing the other party by 1% of the population. I'm just saying.
 
Why a new vote. You had everybody from Trump to Obama telling people what they were voting for.

the fact you think it's constitutional for any percentage of a population to silence another 50% is sad. I feel for you jack! Your life must ******* suck. And then you fuckers singing about democracy. you should be ashamed of yourself.
 

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom