I just hope all of these extremely concerned citizens are writing to Governor DeSantis about the evils of gerrymandering.

Anonymous wrote:
The processes are enumerated in the VA Constitution. The ambiguity is how to measure the time periods or when does an election start.

The Virginia Constitution outlines the amendment process, requiring approval by two successive legislatures and voter ratification, but the exact timing and interpretation of the period between legislative approvals can be ambiguous. The process involves passing the amendment in one legislative session, holding it over for the next elected legislature to approve again, and then putting it to a vote of the people.

Exactly. You can read the constitutional text for yourself right here:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article12/section1/

This is the text in question:

Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or House of Delegates, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, the name of each member and how he voted to be recorded, and referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates.[u]

I've bolded and underlined the debated text. The question at stake is whether "after the next general election" phrase means the date of the general election itself (Tuesday, November 4, 2025) or the date when early voting started in Virginia (September 19, 2024). This matters because the Virginia legislature did not provide first approval until October 31, 2025.

Republicans are arguing that the vote should be thrown out because the phrase "after the next general election" indicates a deadline of September 19. Note: this may be the only time in recorded history that Republicans have supported early voting!

However, when this text of the VA Constitution was drafted in the 1970s, they did not have early voting. So it is clear that it was pegged to the actual Election Day itself. Early voting to Virginia did not come to Virginia until the year 2020.

I don't think anyone can credibly call themselves an "Originalist" and pretend like the Constitutional drafters in the 1970s anticipated early voting days and that being the hard cut-off for the referendum. Elephants and mouseholes.

Anonymous wrote:Question: why wouldn't Spanberger allow for the maps to be posted at the polls?

Because it's not required, you dummy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

100%

Ask the people of California about Prop. 8

Anonymous wrote:Question: why wouldn't Spanberger allow for the maps to be posted at the polls?

Stop lying.

Question: why wouldn't Spanberger allow for the maps to be posted at the polls?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

100%

The question is the law. Process issues and the "restore fairness" wording. So far, I've only heard the process isues addressed.

Are these processes enumerated in the VA constitution? No? Smart money's on the referendum standing.

The processes are enumerated in the VA Constitution. The ambiguity is how to measure the time periods or when does an election start.

The Virginia Constitution outlines the amendment process, requiring approval by two successive legislatures and voter ratification, but the exact timing and interpretation of the period between legislative approvals can be ambiguous. The process involves passing the amendment in one legislative session, holding it over for the next elected legislature to approve again, and then putting it to a vote of the people.

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

Because the United States is a constitutional republic not a true democracy. The people of Virginia elected representatives that serve in the Virginia legislature. Those representatives did or did not follow the requirements of the VA constitution in establishing the referendum that was just held. It is up to the Virginia Supreme Court to determine if the representatives in the Virginia Legislature followed the VA Constitutional requirements in setting up and executing the recent referendum. If the VA SC finds they did not violate the VA constitution the referendum results stand. If the VA SC finds they did not follow the VA constitution then the referendum results will be nullified.

Pretty simple really.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

100%

The question is the law. Process issues and the "restore fairness" wording. So far, I've only heard the process isues addressed.

Are these processes enumerated in the VA constitution? No? Smart money's on the referendum standing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

100%

The question is the law. Process issues and the "restore fairness" wording. So far, I've only heard the process isues addressed.

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

100%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

If the process was unconstitutional, they have to overturn.
Then there is the issue of the referendum question itself…..

MUST READ:

“The referendum here came down to fewer than 90,000 out of more than three million votes.

It is completely plausible that such a small percentage of the electorate was impermissibly influenced by the subjective, normative, politically charged declaration on the ballot that the proposed amendment would ‘restore fairness.’

Accordingly, the referendum likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, and the Virginia Supreme Court should set aside its results.”

FULL STORY in the replies.

The question wording was completely fine. No one was confused.

Anonymous wrote:There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

If the process was unconstitutional, they have to overturn.
Then there is the issue of the referendum question itself…..

MUST READ:

“The referendum here came down to fewer than 90,000 out of more than three million votes.

It is completely plausible that such a small percentage of the electorate was impermissibly influenced by the subjective, normative, politically charged declaration on the ballot that the proposed amendment would ‘restore fairness.’

Accordingly, the referendum likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, and the Virginia Supreme Court should set aside its results.”

FULL STORY in the replies.

There’s something really weird about demanding disenfranchisement and invalidating the results of a literal referendum, which is the purest form of democracy, while arguing that the results disenfranchise people.

This was a majority win for “yes.” I don’t see how the court can not abide by the will of the people here.

Looks like jones did follow procedure and this likely gets thrown out. He's an idiot