The recent actions of Virginia Democrats, particularly Attorney General Jay Jones, have sparked a heated debate within the political arena. In a move that some may deem counterintuitive, Jones has petitioned the US Supreme Court to intervene in the state's gerrymandering battle, a decision that could potentially backfire on Democrats.
This article delves into the intricacies of this controversial move, exploring the underlying motivations and potential consequences.
A Question of Power Dynamics
The Virginia Supreme Court's decision to invalidate the referendum approved by voters earlier this year has sparked a legal battle. Jones, in his brief to the federal justices, relies on the controversial 'independent state legislature doctrine' (ISLD) to argue for the US Supreme Court's intervention.
This doctrine, if accepted, would grant the US Supreme Court the final say in state election law disputes, a power shift that could significantly impact the balance of political power.
The Dangers of a Republican-Dominated Court
What many fail to realize is that the US Supreme Court, with its Republican supermajority, has already played a pivotal role in exacerbating gerrymandering. Two key decisions, Rucho v. Common Cause and Louisiana v. Callais, have effectively removed federal safeguards against partisan gerrymandering.
In my opinion, it's a risky move for Democrats to seek redress from the very institution that has enabled the problem in the first place.
A Troubling Legal Strategy
Jones' brief presents two arguments, one trivial and the other dangerous. The trivial argument hinges on a perceived misreading of a US Supreme Court decision by the Virginia Supreme Court. However, this argument is tenuous at best, as the state court's opinion draws on various sources beyond federal case law.
The more concerning argument relies on the ISLD, a doctrine that, if accepted, would strip state supreme courts of their authority to interpret their own election laws. This would be a massive power grab by the US Supreme Court, and a significant blow to states' rights.
The Broader Implications
If the US Supreme Court were to accept Jones' arguments, it would set a dangerous precedent. State supreme courts, which often reflect the political leanings of their constituents, would be rendered powerless in election law disputes. This could lead to a situation where the highest court in the land becomes the sole arbiter of election outcomes, a scenario that should give pause to anyone concerned about democratic principles.
A Step Backwards for Democrats
In asking the US Supreme Court to intervene, Jones is essentially asking a Republican-dominated court to correct a mistake made by a Democratic-leaning state supreme court. This move not only undermines the authority of state courts but also risks further empowering the very institution that has enabled gerrymandering in the first place.
From my perspective, it's a risky strategy that could backfire spectacularly, leaving Democrats in a far worse position than if they had never filed the case.
Conclusion
The Virginia Democrats' plan to save their gerrymander is a high-stakes gamble. While the intention may be to secure a fairer electoral map, the potential consequences could be detrimental to their cause. It raises the question: Are Democrats willing to risk empowering the very institution that has enabled their problems in the first place?
