In reality, I don’t think it’s either. Trump is as much a reflection and result of opinions on the right as he is a shaper of those opinions. For example, I’ve been seeing significant complaints about Cornyn for quite a while online, Trump tapped into that and also probably escalated it, but it already existed.

Ken Paxton's victory in Texas has, I think, interesting implications for the national political scene.

Coming on top of a string of similar events, this is very bad news for anybody who wants to think MAGA is declining in influence or Trump is a spent force.

I'm not MAGA – I'm…

— Eric S. Raymond (@esrtweet) May 27, 2026

Longer excerpt from the tweet:

Coming on top of a string of similar events, [Paxton’s win] is very bad news for anybody who wants to think MAGA is declining in influence or Trump is a spent force. …

There have been a lot of very determined attempts to fragment the MAGA base and attempt to drive a wedge between them and the Trumpster. I see this on X and other social media – lots of indignant blithering about Israel and the Iran war that seems very light on substance and very heavy on attempting to fracture the Republican coalition.

I don’t think it’s working. [Last night] is evidence that Trump’s endorsement matters, and the base is not kindly disposed towards any Republican pol who’s perceived as not being on his team.

Again, I think the emphasis is wrong there. Yes, there are people who don’t like GOP office-holders who are disloyal to Trump himself, and who consider Team Trump the important thing. But I think the majority of voters support Trump because of what he has done and what he plans to do – that is, his policies – rather than thinking his policies are good because they’re his. Of course,Trump’s personality isn’t separate from his actions, but it’s the latter that most MAGA people emphasize and if he started doing things that were perceived as out of line with those policies he’d be losing their support.

And yes, there are people who want to take over the MAGA movement for various nefarious reasons, including Israel-hatred and Jew-hatred. But there are others who are turning on Trump merely because they are isolationists who perceived him as promising no more wars forever, not just “no forever wars.” But I think that most people on the right understood Trump to be a Jacksonian rather than an isolationist, and see the Iran war as a Jacksonian conflict that is not only necessary but long overdue. In line with that, though, if he ends the Iran war with a bad deal, one perceived as giving away too much to Iran, many of those who have stuck with him so far may become at least somewhat disillusioned.

Also – contrary to the scare propaganda of the left – Trump isn’t going to be running for a third term. If his health holds up, which I sincerely hope it does, he’ll be in office for a little over two and a half more years. Trump’s 80th birthday is only a couple of weeks away, and if all goes well he’ll be 82 and a half on leaving the presidency. At that point, Trump will have a successor or successors. But Trump is sui generis, and there won’t be anyone quite like him again, for good or ill.

The post The Trumpian primaries and Trump’s influence appeared first on The New Neo.

I wonder what the Democrat voters of Maine will decide to do. So far, Democrats are defending him with the argument that he’s changed since he wrote charming things like this:

Among the newly unearthed posts from Platner’s now-deleted “P-Hustle” Reddit account, one from March 2017 in the r/Military forum addressed what he considers a favorite pastime in the portapotty:

“I still have to jerk off every time I sit in a porta-s***ter… that blue water smell conditioned me.”

And then there was this:

… using the same “P-Hustle” account, [Platner] mocked U.S. Army Pfc. Ted Daniels who was seen in a video being shot by the Taliban.

“This video never gets old. Dumb motherf***er didn’t deserve to live,” he allegedly wrote of Daniels, a father of two and Purple Heart recipient who had deliberately drawn enemy fire to protect his squad.

“At least his stupidity and fat a** wheezing are available for all future infantrymen to witness and hold in contempt,” he continued. “Poor marksmanship on the Taliban’s part is the only reason this mouthbreather made it home, he managed to make every possible s*** decision possible when it comes to small unit combat.”

More at the link, including:

He’s engaged in victim-blaming of sexual assault survivors. Posted homophobic jokes. Called rural white Americans racist and stupid. Oh, and referred to himself as a card-carrying Communist.

That’s in addition to the Nazi tattoo. And yet the Democrats are faced with defending him and needing to vote for him to defeat the evil Republicans.

I am left wondering whether most Maine Democrats will hold their noses and vote for him, and what Independents will do. If polls are any indication, Platner could end up gracing the US Senate; however, there haven’t been any polls taken since late March, according to RealClearPolling. All the polls on their list show Platner ahead of Collins, but none show him cracking 50%.

Then again, look at this from Collins’ last Senate run, which took place in 2020 [emphasis mine]:

The race became the most expensive in Maine history, with Collins spending $23 million and [her opponent] Gideon nearly $48 million. It also had national implications, as defeating Collins was a key part of the Democrats’ strategy to achieve a Senate majority. Gideon led Collins in nearly every public poll of the race. Nevertheless, Collins defeated Gideon, 50.98%-42.39%, on election day. Collins outperformed Republican President Donald Trump, who lost the state to Democratic nominee Joe Biden by more than nine percent. Maine was the only state to elect a senator of a different party than the winner of its presidential contest in the November 3 election.

Maine used a ranked choice voting system in the 2020 U.S. Senate election, as established by a 2016 referendum. Because Collins won a majority of the first-place votes cast, no additional vote tabulation rounds were needed.

That was six years ago, and a lot can change in six years. Also, Gideon – a woman – was a more conventional politician than Platner (not a difficult bar to clear). However, note that the 2020 polls were consistently wrong, and that the final result wasn’t even close, despite the fact that – just as today – the race was seen as key to the Democrats’ hopes of a Senate majority. Note also that Collins’ victory was achieved despite Biden winning the state by nine percent, and that she got more than 50% and therefore avoided a runoff.

The fact that Platner is highly likely to be the Democrats’ nominee in a state such as Maine – which, though quite blue, is not entirely so – would be shocking if I still had the capacity to be shocked by something like that. His election would be even more shocking, although I believe it is definitely possible. The Overton Window has moved that far, and what was inconceivable just a short while ago is no longer beyond belief, although it remains both mind-boggling and depressing.

The post The Platner files appeared first on The New Neo.

But it’s not just about policy, and in fact policy may be way way down on the list. To say it’s about power doesn’t really say much either, although power is a big draw for some people of a certain personality type. But power is also about money. With revelations such as this about the vast sums given to NGOs, for example, or Medicaid fraud (and kickbacks and/or payment in votes from the grateful fraudster community), not to mention speaking fees and insider trading and the like, there’s a lot of money to be had.

Trump in particular is a threat – not because he’s a “Nazi” – they clearly don’t mind Nazis if they’re Democrat Nazis – or an “authoritarian” (likewise; authoritarians are great if on the left). It’s because he’s actually serious about “draining the swamp,” which not only has the potential of cutting off the power they wield even when Republicans are in charge, but cutting off the money spigot or at least reducing it.

There’s still another reason, which is the things they’ve done in the past: leaks of classified information, planting false conspiracy theories such as Russiagate, lawfare for political reasons, and now gerrymandering (which both parties have always done but which the left had especially mastered). They may not go to prison for things like the classified leaks, but when their machinations are revealed they do lose face with at least some voters.

Plus, during the Biden administration they were so very close to so many of their goals. They almost were able to pass their transformative legislative package. The only thing that stopped them was the fact that Manchin and Sinema wouldn’t vote for the nuclear option. Manchin and Sinema are gone now – funny thing, that – and the only possible stopper if the Democrats get power again (accent on the “possible” because I’m not sure how he’d really vote) would be Fetterman.

Put it all together and the GOP must be fought with every tool possible, some of them quite creative. With the help of leftist judges, it might be possible to do a lot of shady things now but especially in the future, if the Democrats can win control. That’s why the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision blocking their redistricting efforts for this year was such a shock and such a blow to the left. That’s why, if they come to power again and gain a majority in Congress plus the presidency, they will pack the US Supreme Court to make sure it always rules for their side.

That’s why Hakeem Jeffries said this recently:

Just days before an apparent assassination attempt on President Donald Trump’s life, one of the Democratic Party’s leaders called for “maximum warfare” against Republicans.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made the inflammatory remark while warning Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., against redrawing the state’s congressional map ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Jeffries said that if DeSantis attempted to counter Democratic gains in Virginia following the state’s aggressive gerrymander, Democrats would continue to ratchet up pressure on Republicans nationwide.

“We are in an era of maximum warfare. Everywhere, all the time,” Jeffries said Wednesday at a news conference.

Note the subject matter was redistricting, and Jeffries was basically saying to Republicans, “We can do it but you aren’t allowed to do it.”

The post Why are the Democrats so desperate to regain and retain power? appeared first on The New Neo.

Not me, not yet, although I find the ads incredibly annoying.

For some reason, for about a year I’ve been getting an ad for some sort of face makeup (I turn it off after the usual five seconds, so I don’t even know what it’s advertising, even after all this time), featuring a woman with the most droning grating annoying voice ever. But those ads are nowhere near as infuriating as what I’ve come to call the counter-message ads. At present, they seem to solely involve Israel and Jews – or rather, with countering the message of videos made by pro-Israel or pro-Jewish sources.

For example, if I happen to watch a video by some Jewish or Israeli organization which offers news of the Gaza War or the Iran War from Israel’s point of view, the ads invariably are pro-Gaza and pro-Hamas. If I happen to watch a video that has to do with Jewish thought or religion, invariably it is accompanied by ad after ad from proselytizing Christian organizations explicitly dedicated to converting Jews to Christianity.

These counter-ads are presently solely on Israeli or Jewish videos, but it hasn’t always been that way. I distinctly recall, during the 2024 election campaign, that nearly every pro-Trump video or podcast I would watch (or really anything on the right) would be paired with an ad for Kamala Harris. The opposite may have been true (pro-Kamala podcasts paired with Trump ads), but I wasn’t watching a whole lot of podcasts on the left, so I don’t know.

So, who makes these ad-placement decisions? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the people making the videos. Is it YouTube? Is it the advertisers? Do advertisers pay extra for counter-placement of their ads?

The post YouTube ad placement appeared first on The New Neo.

Now we get “confused” tweets like this:

very confused as to why the VA Supreme Court declined to stop the vote on the redistricting referendum. Whatever you feel about the merits of their decision to strike it down today, the handling of this is a bit odd

— Sam Stein (@samstein) May 8, 2026

Which brings up the old fools/knave issue. Does someone like this not remember the course of events? Did someone like this never pay attention in the first place? Or does he remember but is lying in order to get readers even more incensed at the court for allowing the vote to go forward and then cruelly striking down the people’s will?

Speaking of the people’s will – I’d say this is more than a “little” ironic:

Lydia Moynihan: It's a little ironic that the woman now who is likely going to win the 9th Congressional District in Tennessee is a black Republican instead of a white Democrat male. But that's racist?

Tezlyn Figaro: It actually is

It's now RACIST to elect a black Republican pic.twitter.com/2gEVkz870K

— Brianna Lyman (@briannalyman2) May 8, 2026

The only bona fide black people are Democrats.

Reaction after reaction follows a pattern that shows zero understanding of the fact that states have different rules from each other about how to accomplish redistricting, and that Virginia didn’t follow its own rules. A lot of tweets and comments follow a “they did it in [fill in the blank with a Republican-controlled state], so why can’t we do it in Virginia?” Well, because Virginia has different rules, and this is a state-by-state proposition:

The Virginia Supreme Court has narrowly voted to overturn the will of the people, who voted for a new map to counter Trump’s gerrymandering.

This is despite Republicans in the South moving to eliminate Black-majority districts without even a vote after the Supreme Court gutted… pic.twitter.com/4WoRugVIqI

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) May 8, 2026

Also:

Let’s be clear: If this standard applies in Virginia, it should apply in Florida too.

Two different standards for democracy is not justice. https://t.co/SsAdJupxfq

— Katherine Clark (@TeamKClark) May 8, 2026

Once again, I don’t think this is mere stupidity. The concept of federalism is not a difficult one, and I’m pretty sure these people could easily master it. Their reaction is politically motivated, of course. To me, it also indicates the desire for states all to have the same rules, and for those rules to always favor Democrats. Plus, I think these tweets come from people who may (accent on the “may”) know better, but who count on the idea that their readers don’t know better and are trying to stir them up to rage. It’s one of the reasons Democrats want education to be leftist indoctrination that keeps people ignorant of some very important facts about our government and our history.

Speaking of stirring readers to rage, we have Hasan Piker:

the va supreme court denied the results of the redistricting referendum. scotus gutted the voting rights act and tennessee carved up the last dem district destroying black voter power in the state.

those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable https://t.co/Ul1nW2oz29

— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) May 8, 2026

NOTE: And what of California? Stay tuned.

The post Democrats and NeverTrumpers are very very angry at the Virginia Supreme Court appeared first on The New Neo.

They typically lie about any number of things, exaggerating their accomplishments and minimizing their flaws. The degree to which they are sexually faithful to a spouse would be a favorite arena for mendacity. They might lie about their financial dealings. You know, the usual.

They also might “flip flop” on issues. You don’t hear that term too much these days, but it used to be a big deal – for example, during Kerry’s presidential run.

But it wasn’t until Obama’s candidacy that I noticed a person running for US high office who didn’t just flip-flop but lied about his basic political orientation. He was and remains a dedicated leftist, but he covered that up to a great extent when he was running for office in 2008. He ran as more of a centrist and as a racial healer, but he was neither. With the help of a fawning and compliant press, hints that he was actually a leftist (Ayers and Wright and Alinsky connections, for example, or what “community organizer” actually meant) were covered up or explained in the most benign terms possible.

I wrote about it at the time: for example, here. There were certainly strong hints; what does “fundamentally transform” mean?

Being on the left doesn’t mean you must lie about who you are and what you intend to do. For example, it seems to me that Bernie Sanders has been fairly upfront about his leftist orientation and intentions. But Sanders became a senator by running in Vermont, where such positions didn’t really hurt him, and by the time he ran for national office he couldn’t have covered his history up if he’d tried. Obama had less of a track record, although it was there for those who really looked.

In this post from 2013 I quoted David Horowitz on the subject:

There is a marked difference between the radicals of the Sixties and the radical movement Obama is part of. In the Sixties, as radicals we said what we thought and blurted out what we wanted. We wanted a revolution, and we wanted it now. It was actually very decent of us to warn others as to what we intended. But because we blurted out our goal, we didn’t get very far. Americans were onto us. Those who remained on the left when the Sixties were over, learned from their experience. They learned to lie. The strategy of the lie is progressives’ new gospel. It is what the progressive bible – Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – is all about. Alinsky is the acknowledged political mentor to Obama and Hillary, to the service and teacher unions, and to the progressive rank and file. Alinsky understood the mistake Sixties’ radicals had made. His message to this generation is easily summed up: Don’t telegraph your goals; infiltrate their institutions and subvert them; moral principles are disposable fictions; the end justifies the means; and never forget that your political goal is always power.

An SDS radical wrote in the Sixties: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” The Alinsky version is this: The issue is never the issue; the issue is always power: How to wring power out of the democratic process, how turn the process into an instrument of progressive control. How to use it to fundamentally transform the United States of America – which is exactly what Barack Obama warned he would do on the eve of his election.

Horowitz knew whereof he spoke, having been a 1960s radical who later turned to the right. But most people in the US didn’t know what Horowitz knew, and they were fooled by Obama – just as they recently were fooled by Abigail Spanberger. The latter phenomenon is what has gotten me to reminisce about the topic:

It works.

NOTE: The Ayatollah Khomenei was not a leftist, but he operated like one in this sense. I wrote this 2016 post on the subject. An excerpt:

Just as an example, in November of 1978 [Khomeini] said, “Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system.” Then on his return to Iran about a year later: “I will strike with my fists at the mouths of this government. From now on it is I who will name the government.”

Here’s another later quote:

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?…Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!”

The post On lying in politics appeared first on The New Neo.

A Tazewell County Circuit Court judge on Thursday granted an emergency injunction blocking what Republicans call an unlawful April 21 redistricting referendum while the case is heard in court.

Chief Judge Jack Hurley issued a temporary restraining order barring state and local election officials from moving forward with the planned vote. The move handed the plaintiffs in the case — the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and U.S. Reps. Ben Cline, R-Botetourt County, and Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, — a brief reprieve in a high-stakes fight that could reshape Virginia’s congressional map ahead of the midterms.

It was the Virginia Supreme Court that lifted Hurley’s order and let the vote proceed, without ruling on the merits at all, thereby postponing a decision on the merits. But that set up a probable bias to rule it constitutional if the voters went for “yes,” which they did. Constitutionality shouldn’t be affected by that, but it sometimes is.

Who was the judge who issued the stay yesterday? You guessed it: Judge Hurley once again. No wonder he was ready with his ruling; it probably echoed what he’d said back in February. The real question is what the Virginia Supreme Court will now say. Will they refuse to buck the “will of the people”?

Oh, and note in that article I just linked that Hurley is being excoriated as an “activist judge” by the left. Pretty funny, considering how they adore their own activist judges:

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said the ruling from an ‘activist judge’ will immediately be appealed by his office

You remember Jay Jones, don’t you? The guy who wanted the GOP Speaker of the Virginia House at the time shot and killed, and wanted the Speaker’s children shot and killed? Yes, that Jay Jones, who won his election and is now the august AG of Virginia.

The post The courts and the Virginia referendum: redux appeared first on The New Neo.

A circuit court in Virginia just ruled that the newly passed but incredibly biased gerrymandered congressional map is unconstitutional.

Former Virginia attorney general and Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli II posted on X Wednesday about the gerrymandered map, “UPDATE on referendum lawsuits: The Tazewell Circuit Court just ruled the referendum unconstitutional. The Judge entered an injunction blocking certification of the election & denied a motion to stay pending appeal. A final order will be entered once drafted, & it will be immediately appealed.”

It sure will. The Virginia Supreme Court refused to rule on the vote in advance, but now they will almost certainly need to do so. Of course, it will be more difficult to say it’s unconstitutional once “the people have spoken.” Difficult, but not impossible. It sounds to me like a timid court, though. Will the case ultimately be heard by SCOTUS?

The post It’s just a circuit court, and might be overruled, but the Virginia gerrymander vote has been declared unconstitutional appeared first on The New Neo.

But first I’ll quote commenter “JohnTyler” on the subject:

This Virginia redistricting is just a preliminary event and demonstrates, yet again, that demonkrats play hardball and they will do absolutely anything to gain and retain power.

When the Dems take Congress and the presidency they will pack the SCOTUS, bring in PR and DC as states, formally allow non-citizens to vote in any and all elections, open up the borders to allow in millions of illegals, get rid of the filibuster, arrest and indict Trump and any of his main supporters, totally nationalize health care, “informally” declare that Israel is a pariah state, re-establish US /Iranian relations as it was during the Obama era, etc. etc.

It will be a bloodless coup d’etat, because the constitution will be totally ignored as a result of the packing of the SCOTUS; imagine a bunch of Justice Jacksons on the court.

But hey, it’s up to the voters and it is the voters that will destroy our constitutional republic.

California, NYC and Chicago are just mini-examples of what will occur in the USA when the demonrats take power.

Except for the fact that I don’t use words like “demonrats,” I’m in agreement and have been saying it for many years. Leftists are True Believers and fanatics and one of the things in which they believe is that the ends justify the means. “The ends” equal permanent power for themselves.

Another True Believer – although in a different, strangely related, cause – is Erdogan of Turkey, who famously said:

Democracy is like a tram. You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.

That tram route can include fraudulent votes and misleading wording for a referendum such as the one in Virginia. And the stepping-off doesn’t have to be overt, because once the game is rigged, and then non-Democrats of the state are disenfranchised, you can stay on the tram indefinitely.

That’s been obvious about the Democrats for many many years, at least fifteen and probably many more. After the 2020 election, I thought it all would happen. But the Democrat majority in the Senate was small enough that Sinema and Manchin were able to thwart the plans. Now they’re gone and it’s the GOP with the tiny majority and people such as Murkowski to do the blocking. Plus, the GOP is not as fanatically devoted to bending the rules nor as united in aims.

What happened in Virginia? I see a lot of comments around the blogosphere from people on the right (or perhaps concern trolls) saying the Republicans did nothing to stop this. Well, they obviously didn’t do enough. But they didn’t do nothing. In my previous post on the subject, I wrote about the GOP lawsuit that failed when the Virginia Supreme Court refused to rule until the vote had occurred. In addition, there are allegations about fraudulent mail-in ballots in Fairfax County putting the Democrats over the top at the last minute; I have no idea if it’s true but I assume that even if it is it can’t be proven.

Plus:

Democrats spent $70 million on this referendum.
Almost every penny came from out of state.
They broke laws.
They wrote a deceitful ballot measure.
They ran tv spots for two months, nonstop.
They brought in Obama.
They brought in Hollywood.

We had grassroots.
That’s really it.… pic.twitter.com/fHR86zkUa4

— The?FOO (@PolitiBunny) April 22, 2026

Once the Democrats decided to set up this referendum to allow a bare majority of voters to permit the overturning of an amendment establishing a bipartisan redistricting body, and once the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the referendum vote to go forward despite a GOP challenge, what could the GOP do? I don’t think more money was the answer, although it wouldn’t have hurt. But at the moment, the reality is that Democrats hold the majority in Virginia – or effectively control the vote even if they don’t, because they control the populous counties and the voting process there.

The post The significance of the Virginia redistricting vote appeared first on The New Neo.

Virginia voters went to the polls Tuesday to vote on a referendum that would empower the Democrat-controlled state legislature to redraw the commonwealth’s congressional map.

The vote was in favor, and this means that according to the plan the number of Democrat to Republican districts in the state will change from 6-5 to 10-1. The 6:5 ratio pretty much reflected the actual proportions of Democrats to Republicans in the state, whereas 10:1 is ridiculously skewed. But only the courts could stop this now. The legal challenge:

The case centers on whether lawmakers violated the Virginia Constitution by keeping the special session open for nearly two years to pass the redistricting measure, a move critics say was an abuse of legislative authority. …

Democrats have argued to the Supreme Court that the General Assembly has broad constitutional authority to manage its own legislative sessions and procedures, including extending a special session, and that nothing in the Virginia Constitution explicitly prohibits how this particular session was handled.

The Honest Elections Project’s brief argues otherwise.

“If you look at what the law requires, it’s very clear that Governor Spanberger and her allies are steamrolling the process to try to launch a power grab,” Snead said.

The Democrats in Virginia are saying “the Republicans made us do it!” – arguing this is only a response to GOP efforts at redisticting.

More:

The [Virginia] Supreme Court decided in March to allow the referendum vote to move forward while it considers Republicans’ arguments challenging how the map amendment was passed by way of a special session.

“It is the process, not the outcome, of this effort that we may ultimately have to address,” the state’s highest court found. “Issuing an injunction to keep Virginians from the polls is not the proper way to make this decision.”

But an ounce of prevention would have been worth a lot of cure. Perhaps the Court hoped the populace would vote against it, and then the Court wouldn’t even have to rule. Now, of course, do they vote to undo the will of the people? I doubt it; here’s why:

Political and legal experts in Virginia agree the state Supreme Court is not overtly ideological, with many describing it as “small-c conservative,” leaning heavily on tradition and precedent rather than handing down ideologically right-wing rulings. And many observers say the court is wary of wading too heavily into political fights. But this time, it’s unavoidable.

“It’s kind of a state Supreme Court tradition to stay away from political matters whenever they can. They like to leave the legislating to the legislature. …

Virginia is one of only two states where the legislature elects Supreme Court justices. Because the state has had divided control for much of the past quarter century, the balance of the court’s justices were appointed by bipartisan compromise. The court’s current seven members include one justice who was elected when Democrats had sole control of the General Assembly, three when Republicans controlled both chambers and three when control of the legislature was split.

Some further background:

While state legislatures can redraw congressional maps in some states, Virginia voters in 2020 approved a constitutional amendment that created a bipartisan commission to draw their state’s map. Tuesday’s referendum set aside the current maps drawn up by the commission, replacing them with maps that were drawn by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. The previous system will be put back in place after the 2030 census.

It’s so transparently unfair, basically disenfranchising nearly half the state. But it might be allowed to proceed. Would the case then end up in the US Supreme Court?

The post Virginia Democrats vote for the mother of all gerrymanders appeared first on The New Neo.