Tag: gerrymandering

Judge: Virginia Democrats’ Gerrymandering Ploy Is Illegal And Voided

AVirginia judge has shot down efforts by state Democrats to gerrymander the commonwealth in their party’s favor ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

In his Tuesday decision, Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley ruled that Democrat lawmakers unlawfully rushed a constitutional amendment proposal — which would allow them to redraw the state’s congressional map — through the General Assembly. As The Federalist’s Breccan Thies recently reported, Democrats’ proposed map “could nuke up to four Republican-held seats” and create “a potential [congressional] delegation of 10 Democrats and one Republican.”

Under the Virginia Constitution, proposed amendments must first be passed by both chambers of the General Assembly in two consecutive legislative sessions. Should they receive such approval, these measures are then submitted to voters for consideration “not sooner than ninety days after final passage by the General Assembly,” and must receive majority support from the electorate to ratify the state’s founding document.

The Democrat-run General Assembly passed the proposed redistricting amendment in October 2025 and again earlier this month, with the hopes of sending it to voters for approval in an April special election so that the gerrymandered map could be used for the midterms later this year. Critics — which include the lawsuit’s Republican plaintiffs and former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares — argued that the General Assembly’s October passage of the amendment was illegitimate because it occurred during early voting, and therefore, did not comport with the Virginia Constitution’s requirement that there be an intervening general election between the legislature’s twice approval of the resolution.

“Under current Virginia law, the election voting process in Virginia spans 45 days. The closing of the polls on November 4, 2025 will be the culmination of the ongoing election process, which commenced September 19, 2025,” Miyares wrote last year. “Accordingly, because a general election of delegates is already underway, the November 4th culmination of this 2025 election cannot be deemed to be the ‘next general election.’ It is the current general election.”

Hurley agreed with such arguments in his Tuesday ruling. While acknowledging the constitutional requirement raised by plaintiffs and Miyares, the circuit judge noted that in order for him to “find that the election was only on November 4, 2025, those one million Virginia voters” who cast their ballots in the early voting process “would be completely disenfranchised.”

“There is no rational conclusion except that the ELECTION began on the first day of voting (September 19, 2025) and ended on November 4, 2025. Therefore, the Court FINDS that following the October 31, 2025 vote and passage of House Joint Resolution 6007 there HAS NOT BEEN an ensuing election of the House of Delegates, and such ensuing general election CANNOT occur until 2027,” Hurley wrote. “Thus, the action of the General Assembly during its Regular Session 2026 CANNOT meet the second passage required of Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution, which second passage must occur before the same can be submitted to the voters of Virginia for adoption.”

Keep reading

Virginia Dem Goes Nuclear on Kaine, Warner With Sexually Profane Tirade

A Democratic leader in Virginia launched a public and profane attack on two of her party’s most prominent figures over redistricting plans, as intraparty tensions flare ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as reported by The Independent Journal Review.

Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas blasted U.S. Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner in a series of social media posts Saturday, accusing them of meddling in state-level redistricting and dismissing their input in crude terms.

The outburst followed action by Virginia Senate Democrats, who on Friday approved a proposed constitutional amendment allowing the General Assembly to redraw congressional district maps mid-decade.

The move comes as both parties nationally are positioning themselves for the 2026 midterms, with redistricting increasingly used as a tool to gain or protect control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

After the amendment advanced, Lucas posted an image of a McDonald’s worker asking, “Would you like fries with that?” before turning her attention to Kaine and Warner in a follow-up post.

“I have the utmost respect for Senator Kaine and Senator Warner but we do not need ‘coaching’ on redistricting coming from a cuck chair in the corner,” Lucas wrote.

“How about you all stay focused on the fascist in the White House and let us handle redistricting in Virginia. 10-1.”

Keep reading

Virginia Democrats Move To Establish Limitless Abortion, Ban Guns, And Gerrymander Districts

The Republican-run government of Virginia has four days left in office, and Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., along with Democrat majorities in the Commonwealth’s legislature, are going to start the ball rolling with expanding abortion, making sure felons can vote, and implementing gun restrictions.

Responsible political leadership in Virginia might be focused on answering things like the housing affordability crisis, which has been made much more acute with the importation of foreigners to the most populous areas of the state.

Democrats coming into power in Virginia will hold a 21-19 majority in the state Senate and a 64-36 majority in the House of Delegates. Their top priorities include four proposed constitutional amendments: To expand abortion even later in the pregnancy and make it impossible to restrict (Virginia already allows most abortion up to 26 weeks — the most permissive in the entire South); to enshrine homosexual unions as a right; to automatically restore voting to felons who have completed their sentences; and to allow for mid-decade congressional redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms, where Democrats could nuke up to four Republican-held seats through gerrymandering.

Keep reading

Wisconsin’s Lib-Led Supreme Court Stacks The Congressional Map Deck

While milquetoast Republicans experience a collective tummy ache over the “fairness” of mid-decade redistricting, Democrats nationally are feasting on power-grabbing gerrymanders.  

The latest outflanking comes — not surprisingly — from Wisconsin’s liberal-controlled Supreme Court. 

‘Forum Shopping’

Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Badger State’s court of last resort ordered the creation of judicial panels to hear two lawsuits seeking to undo Wisconsin’s existing  congressional maps, in which six of eight House seats are held by Republicans. Interestingly, the district lines were drawn by a committee whose members were appointed by Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a far-left Democrat. The Evers maps benefitted Democrats, but didn’t go far enough for a Democratic Party salivating over a potential congressional power grab with the help of the liberal-led Supreme Court. 

In a move oozing with partisanship, the court’s liberal justices selected some of the more far-left lower court judges in the state to serve on the two panels.

Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler, one of three conservatives on the seven-member court, argued that the majority’s orders disregard the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions and ignore fundamental legal principles. 

“The majority not only undermines our constitutional authority and circumvents established redistricting precedent but also, again, usurps the legislature’s constitutional power,” Ziegler chided. “In allowing this litigation to proceed, the majority abdicates its constitutional superintending authority to Wisconsin’s circuit courts.”

The Republican-controlled state legislature and Wisconsin’s six GOP congressmen argue that the lawsuits confuse political representation concepts. But the Supreme Court’s majority said the argument is merely a matter of semantics, that “apportionment” and “redistricting” are used interchangeably in drawing up — or in this case, redrawing — political boundaries. And the law, the majority assert, requires the court “appoint a panel consisting of 3 circuit court judges to hear” a redistricting lawsuit. 

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, who has at times sided with the liberals on the court, takes no issue with the creation of the panels. In his dissenting opinion, however, Hagedorn disagrees with the process. He argued the law is “transparently designed to prevent forum shopping in disputes over where congressional lines should be drawn.” But that’s exactly what the majority did. 

“Given the nature of this case and the statute’s implicit call for geographic diversity and neutrality, a randomly-selected panel and venue would be a better way to fulfill the statutory mandate,” the justice wrote. “Instead, my colleagues have chosen to keep this case in Dane County and leave the originally assigned Dane County judge on the panel.”  Dane County’s circuit court, located in state capital and far-left enclave Madison, is one the more left-leaning courts in the country. 

Keep reading

Federal Judges Allow North Carolina to Use New GOP-Drawn Congressional Map

Federal judges in North Carolina allowed the state to use the newly drawn congressional map, which gives Republicans one extra seat in the House.

Two lawsuits were filed to block the North Carolina legislature from enacting the newly drawn map.

A three-judge panel of the US District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina denied requests for a preliminary injunction.

NBC News reported:

A federal court in North Carolina is allowing the state to use a new Republican-drawn congressional map that would help the GOP pick up another seat in the House during next year’s midterm elections.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina unanimously denied preliminary injunction requests brought by a pair of lawsuits that said in part that the new map was aimed at diluting the voting strength of Black voters, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The judges found that the challengers “presented no direct evidence” that the North Carola Legislature enacted the map for racially discriminatory purposes.

“Instead, the direct evidence shows that the 2025 redistricting was motivated by partisan purposes,” the panel wrote Wednesday in a 57-page opinion.

Wednesday’s ruling comes after the Republican-controlled North Carolina Legislature last month approved a map aimed at expanding the number of Republican seats in the House. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, does not have the power to veto the map.

The challengers, in a pair of consolidated lawsuits, asked the court to block the state from using the new borders of two congressional districts for next year’s midterms.

Texas is also battling its newly redrawn congressional map in court and has asked the Supreme Court to halt the lower court’s ruling that blocked the new redraw.

Last Friday, Justice Alito paused the lower court’s ruling and temporarily restored Texas’s new congressional map.

In response to Texas’s redraw, California eliminated 5 House GOP seats.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California and argued that its new congressional map is a result of unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering.

Keep reading

Panel of Federal Judges Block New Texas Congressional Map, Orders State to Use 2021 Map

A panel of federal judges on Tuesday blocked the new Texas Congressional map and ordered the state to use the 2021 map.

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel ordered Texas to use its 2021 congressional map.

The judges claimed the newly redrawn map is unconstitutional because it appears to be a ‘race-based gerrymander.’

The ruling is expected to be immediately appealed.

US District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion.

Politico reported:

A panel of federal judges has blocked Texas’ newly-redrawn congressional map — which made five districts in the state more favorable to Republicans — saying the plan appeared to be an illegal race-based gerrymander.

In a 2-1 ruling, the court ordered Texas to rely instead on the boundaries legislators drew in 2021. The new map, the majority concluded, appears likely to be unconstitutional and was drawn at the urging of the Trump administration.

“The map ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor — the 2025 Map — achieved all but one of the racial objectives that DOJ demanded,” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Galveston-based Trump appointee, wrote for the panel majority.

In late August, the Texas House voted on the new Congressional map after the Democrats stonewalled them for more than two weeks.

The map, passed 19–2 along party lines, was designed to create up to five new Republican‑drawn U.S. House seats in anticipation of the 2026 midterm elections.

“This mid-decade redistricting isn’t about fair representation—it’s about politicians picking their voters instead of voters choosing their leaders,” the Senate Democrat Caucus said in a previous statement. “And it doesn’t stop here. If they can gerrymander now, they can and will do it before every election.”

Democrat-run California passed a new congressional map that eliminates five GOP seats in response to Texas’s new map.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that its new map is unconstitutional because it is allegedly race-based.

Keep reading

DOJ Joins Lawsuit Challenging California’s Redistricting Maps

The Department of Justice has sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber for the State of California’s newly adopted redistricting plan enacted with the passage of Proposition 50. 

The suit alleges that the plan mandates racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

Proposition 50 amends the California Constitution, allowing the legislature to draw a new congressional-district map. Substantial evidence, including that in the legislative record and public statements, indicates that the legislature created a new map in which Latino demographics and racial considerations predominated, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50,” said Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond.”

The 20-page document was filed in California’s district court and claims that the proposition used race as a proxy to advance political interests. 

Keep reading

Utah Activist Judge Hands Democrats a Win — Tosses GOP-Drawn Congressional Map and Imposes Plaintiff’s Version Ahead of 2026 Elections, Projected to Give Dems +1 Seat

The Utah Third District Court has struck down the congressional map crafted by the Republican-led state legislature, labeling it an unconstitutional “gerrymander” and replacing it with a map drawn by left-wing plaintiffs.

The new map, which the court claims better complies with the state’s anti-gerrymandering initiative, is projected to give Democrats an additional seat in one of the nation’s deeply red states.

At the heart of the controversy is the court’s decision to affirm a lower court injunction blocking the legislature’s maps (S.B. 1011 and S.B. 1012, known as Map C), claiming they violated Proposition 4 — a 2018 initiative designed to curb partisan gerrymandering.

The Court, led by Judge Dianna M. Gibson, has thrown out the legislature’s S.B. 1012 (Map C) and S.B. 1011, both approved earlier this year by the state’s duly elected representatives.

And instead adopts “Map 1,” drawn by the plaintiffs themselves, after declaring that the legislature’s map “unduly favored Republicans.”

“Map C was drawn with partisan political data on display,” wrote Gibson.

“Map C does not abide by Proposition 4’s traditional redistricting criteria ‘to the greatest extent practicable.’ And, based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that Map C was drawn with the purpose to favor Republicans—a conclusion that follows from even S.B. 1011’s metric for partisan intent—and it unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.”

“In short, [the Legislature’s map] does not comply with Utah law,” Gibson wrote in her ruling.

“Because the Lieutenant Governor’s November 10, 2025, deadline for a map to be finalized is upon us, the Court bears the unwelcome obligation to ensure that a lawful map is in place, which the Court discharges by adopting.”

Gibson’s opinion dismisses the legislature’s chosen criteria as “biased,” while elevating the plaintiffs’ computer-generated maps as the new standard for “neutrality.”

“Under the only reliable ensemble of computer-simulated maps that comply with Proposition 4’s requirements offered by the parties, Map C is an extreme partisan outlier—more Republican than over 99% of expected maps drawn without political considerations,” she wrote.

“The Court therefore finds that Map C is an extreme statistical outlier not only when compared to Dr. Chen’s simulations, which universally comply with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria, but also when compared to subsets of Dr. Trende’s simulations as they approach compliance with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria.

“Given Map C’s level of pro-Republican favoritism and extreme statistical departure from maps drawn to comply with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria given the state’s political geography, the Court credits Dr. Chen’s conclusion that Map C’s partisan characteristics cannot be attributed to compliance with those criteria or the state’s political geography,” she wrote.

Under the court-imposed Map 1, Utah’s longstanding 4-0 Republican advantage could be broken for the first time in decades, despite the state voting Republican in every presidential race since 1968 and in every congressional district by double digits.

The last time the state supported a Democratic presidential candidate was in the national Democratic landslide of 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson won the state.

In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama narrowly won Salt Lake County, the state’s most populous county, marking the first time a Democrat had carried that county since 1964. The new map creates a Democrat-leaning district centered around Salt Lake County.

Keep reading

Prop 50 Passes: California Voters Approve Newsom’s Power Grab to Eliminate 5 Congressional Seats

As expected, California voters approved Prop 50 which could help the Democrats flip 5 congressional seats in 2026.

Thanks to ballot drop boxes, mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, and illegal aliens, voters approved Newsom’s power grab to eliminate five GOP congressional seats through 2030.

“The five California Republicans targeted by the redistricting plan include Representatives Doug LaMalfa in District 1, Kevin Kiley in District 3, David Valadao in District 22, Ken Calvert in District 41, and Darrell Issa in District 48,” KCRA reported.

Earlier Tuesday, President Trump called the redistricting vote in California a “giant scam” and said it is under criminal review.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED. All “Mail-In” Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are “Shut Out,” is under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!” President Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Keep reading

Health Insurance Companies Spend Big To Support California’s Partisan Redistricting Fight

In Washington, Democrats continue to keep the federal government shut down, demanding an extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies scheduled to expire on December 31. Half a continent away, two health insurers are helping to fund a partisan campaign by one of the country’s most prominent Democrats. Coincidence?

The political donations represent but one more example of how big corporations want to feather the nest of Big Government and bankroll the leftist politicians willing to expand the same. It’s also yet another reason why Congress should let the enhanced subsidies expire as scheduled.

Big-Money Donations

A September story in the Sacramento Bee discussing money raised for and against the state’s Proposition 50 ballot measure on congressional redistricting noted two sizable donations from health insurers — $500,000 from Blue Shield of California, and $75,000 from UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest insurer. The news raises numerous questions, starting with how the insurers could afford such large political contributions in the first place.

After all, as I have previously noted, a recent California law that went into effect in March requires insurers to engage in “cultural competency training” regarding the transgender agenda. Apart from the fact that such training — more like indoctrination — likely violates employees’ First Amendment rights and federal conscience protections, it could also prove costly for insurers.

On top of the new administrative costs from this new mandate, UnitedHealth faces expenses from last year’s hack of Change Healthcare, one of its affiliates, that caused chaos within the health care system for months. So where and how exactly did these insurers have the wherewithal to make such large contributions?

Partisan Affair

The related question focuses more on the specifics of Proposition 50 itself. The referendum doesn’t touch on a health care-related issue — or really any policy issue whatsoever. It’s a pure political power play by Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-CA, attempting to gerrymander more Democratic-leaning congressional districts in California to offset Republican gerrymanders in Texas and elsewhere. Why are health insurers getting involved in such overtly political activities?

In responding to questions from the Daily Wire, Blue Shield of California claimed that it made its donations to Newsom’s ballot measure committee before it knew that Proposition 50 would end up on the November ballot. That’s arguably true regarding its first $250,000 contribution, made on April 24. But by the time of its second $250,000 contribution on July 16, rumors had started swirling about actions by California to respond to redistricting efforts by Texas Republicans.

Blue Shield of California also told the Daily Wire that it contributes to lawmakers on a bipartisan basis. But after its $500,000 contribution to Newsom’s ballot measure campaign, its next-largest contributions were $50,000 to the California Democratic Party, and $20,000 to the LGBT Caucus Leadership Fund — all of which suggests its donations go overwhelmingly to Democrats in a state with de facto one-party rule.

Keep reading