This is a ‘COMPLETE HUMILIATION:' Former Virginia AG

Key Concepts

• Redistricting/Gerrymandering: The process of drawing electoral district boundaries, which the speaker argues was manipulated illegally in Virginia.
• Constitutional Amendment Process: The legal requirement in Virginia involving passage by the General Assembly, an intervening election, and a second passage before voter approval.
• Rule of Law: The principle that government authority is exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws and established procedures.
• Deceptive Ballot Language: The accusation that the proposed redistricting measure used misleading terminology to influence voter perception.
• Judicial Independence: The role of the Virginia Supreme Court in upholding constitutional procedures regardless of the political affiliation of the justices.

---

1. Main Topics and Key Points

The discussion centers on a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that struck down a redistricting effort led by Democrats. Former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares characterizes the court's decision as a victory for the "rule of law" and a defeat for an "illegal gerrymandering effort."

• Procedural Failure: Miyares asserts that the redistricting attempt failed because it bypassed the mandatory constitutional process. Specifically, the proponents attempted to force the measure through a special session just one week before the gubernatorial election, failing to meet the required 90-day notice period before an election.
• Financial Impact: The failed initiative resulted in an estimated $10 million in wasted taxpayer funds.
• Political Representation: The proposed map would have significantly altered Virginia’s congressional representation, potentially reducing Republican representation to 9% despite the party receiving 48% of the vote in the state.

2. Legal Framework and Methodology

Miyares outlines the specific constitutional requirements for amending the redistricting process in Virginia:

1. General Assembly Approval: The amendment must pass the legislature.
2. Intervening Election: An election must occur to allow voters to weigh in on the representatives who passed the measure.
3. Second Legislative Passage: The new General Assembly must pass the amendment again.
4. Voter Referendum: The measure is then presented to the public for a final vote.

The proponents of the failed measure attempted to circumvent these steps by using a special session, which the court ruled was procedurally invalid.

3. Key Arguments and Perspectives

• The "Rule of Law" Argument: Miyares argues that the court’s decision was non-partisan, noting that the justice who authored the opinion was appointed by a Democrat (Mark Warner) and confirmed unanimously by a Democrat-controlled legislature. He uses this to refute claims that the ruling was a partisan hit job.
• Critique of Deception: A central argument is that the campaign for the redistricting measure was "deceitful." Miyares points out that proponents never published the actual maps on their websites or marketing materials, hiding the true impact of the redistricting from the public.
• Response to Criticism: The segment addresses comments made by Hasan Piker, who criticized the court's decision as an attack on voting rights. Miyares dismisses this, arguing that Piker lacks an understanding of the specific constitutional violations that occurred in Virginia and that the state had already voted in 2020 (by a 30% margin) to remove politicians from the redistricting process.

4. Notable Quotes

• Jason Miyares: "This is a win for the rule of law, common sense and is a real humiliation... [for those who tried to] rig the system with the deceitful ballot language that violated so many norms."
• Jason Miyares: "They do not get a second bite at the apple. This is $10 million that went up in smoke."
• Dagen: "I don't want to hear one word out of the Commonwealth about higher costs plaguing Virginia households when they spend $10 million on the boondoggle."

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision is presented as a definitive end to a controversial redistricting effort. The primary takeaway is that the court prioritized constitutional procedure over political maneuvering. By failing to adhere to the 90-day notice requirement and attempting to bypass the standard legislative-to-voter pipeline, the proponents of the measure not only lost their legal battle but also faced criticism for the misuse of $10 million in taxpayer funds. The segment concludes that the ruling protects the integrity of the electoral process in Virginia and serves as a check against political overreach.