The Virginia State Court, on a 4–3 party-line split, invalidated millions of votes cast in favor of a redistricting amendment that could have given Democrats a significant congressional advantage. To do so, explains Jamelle Bouie in a terrific breakdown of this absurdity, the Republican majority on the Court redefined what constitutes an “election,” arguing that the 45 days of early voting before Election Day are part of the election, in contravention of the plain language of the relevant statute, and setting up a paradox where an election “is a process that begins with early voting, but early voting must precede an election by 45 days.”

No one believes, as Bouie notes, that the Court would have ruled the same way had the roles been reversed, with Republicans following the same process and timing. I’ll add that had the referendum’s map given the electoral advantage to the Republicans, it would have also survived the Court.

Bouie reminds us:

[…] a referendum on a Constitutional level is not just any other vote. It is a vote of the people in their capacity as sovereign, and “sovereign” simply means “ultimate authority.” The Constitution, both the federal Constitution and state Constitution, get their authority from the fact that they’re creations of the sovereign people, ratified by the sovereign people. And the courts, which are meant to enforce these Constitutions, also get their power from the fact that they’re creations of the sovereign people. So what business does a court have overriding the people in their capacity as sovereigns?

He also echoes President Andrew Jackson’s apocryphal quote:

[…] the appropriate response for [Virginia Governor Abigail] Spanberger, for the House speaker, for any Democrat, is to say, in effect, they made their ruling; they can enforce it. And we’re gonna continue with these maps, because three million people voted. They voted and we got a result. And those votes matter. That result matters. And no court, seven people—four people—cannot invalidate the decisions of a couple million.

He concludes:

The proper response is to do what Republicans in Ohio and Florida have done, just ignore court decisions, ignore even state constitutions, and pursue this project, because anything else is unilateral disarmament. […]

And I think that if Democrats lay down and refuse, because of some commitment to norms that are no longer in operation, because of some commitment to a notion of fair play that is no longer in operation, if in this game of hardball, they refuse to play in turn, then you just gotta get rid of them.

[T]hat, to me, is the baseline for support now. Are you willing to fight? Are you going to stand up for people’s rights? Are you willing to allow unelected judges, and unaccountable and runaway state legislatures, and power-hungry presidents gobble up all the power, and leave tens of millions of Americans at the mercy of would-be authoritarians? Are you gonna do that? Because if you are, if that’s where your inclination lies, I think you should find another job and make way for people who are actually interested in trying to save this democracy from its enemies.

Bouie continues to be my favorite voice of reason and resistance. If you’re not already subscribed to his Takes™ by Jamelle Bouie YouTube channel, do it now.