Virginia Redistricting Power Grab Exposes Political Double Standards

My friends, where is the outrage? That’s the question that has to be asked today. Just a few months ago, we were told that redistricting mid-decade was outrageous, dangerous, even immoral. The media screamed. Political opponents fumed. Even some Republicans tried to claim the moral high ground by refusing to act.

Now? Silence.

Virginia just moved forward with a redistricting plan that could reshape congressional power—and suddenly, the same voices that once cried foul have nothing to say. This isn’t about “fairness.” It never was. It’s about power. It’s about who is willing to use the tools the Constitution clearly provides—and who is too timid to act when it matters most.

Here’s the truth: redistricting is not some shady loophole. It’s a constitutional responsibility of state legislatures. The Founders designed it that way. But somewhere along the line, we replaced constitutional clarity with emotional arguments about what “feels fair.”

Indiana had the opportunity to act—and didn’t. Virginia, on the other hand, found a way to move forward. Whether or not their process holds up in court is another question entirely. There are serious legal challenges already forming, and this fight is far from over.

But politically? The contrast is undeniable.

Democrats understand the stakes. They are willing to act decisively. Republicans hesitate—worried about criticism, narratives, or appearing too aggressive. Meanwhile, control of the House of Representatives could hinge on decisions like these.

That’s not theory. That’s reality.

This moment should be a wake-up call for those who refuse to listen to the alarm. If one side is playing to win while the other is not even playing at all, the outcome is absolutely predictable.

The question is simple: will leaders step up and use the authority they’ve been given—or will they continue to sit on the sidelines while others reshape the map?

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

⚠️ Outrage disappears as Virginia redistricts mid-decade
🗣️ “Fairness” framing exposed as political messaging, not objective truth
🏛️ Redistricting affirmed as a constitutional power of state legislatures
🧩 Indiana Republicans criticized for failing to act when they had the chance
⚖️ Virginia’s referendum faces multiple legal challenges that could overturn it
🔥 Control of the House may hinge on which party is willing to fight for power

^{The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.}

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

Your uncle forwards you sketchy tech articles. Your coworker won't stop talking about AI taking everyone's jobs. And you're stuck Googling the same five questions every week.

The Current is a daily tech newsletter written by Kim Komando that helps you stay up to date on AI, tech, and trends in about 5 minutes a day.

Each morning she breaks down what’s happening in tech so you can quickly understand what matters without digging through a bunch of different questionable sources.

In each issue you’ll find things like:

It’s a simple read designed to help you eliminate the hours you probably spend Googling the same 5 tech questions

Sign up for The Current today! It’s completely free.

My friends, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but a deep blue state has passed a law requiring photo ID.

In Connecticut, lawmakers decided identification suddenly matters. I never thought I’d see the day.

Because when Republicans propose ID, it’s called unfair, discriminatory, racist.

But when something really matters, the rules somehow change.

Now you might think this is about protecting elections.

You’d be wrong.

This is about recycling.

Return more than 1,000 bottles in a day, and you need a government-issued photo ID.

Apparently, saving the planet is so important that Connecticut only wants its own residents getting paid to do it.

Weird.

But to protect the ballot box, it’s still too much to ask.

In Connecticut, you need a photo ID to recycle, but not to vote the clowns out.

“Should the Constitution be amended to restore fairness …”

That’s how Virginia voters were pitched—on the ballot. Not whether to redraw congressional districts. Not how power would shift. But whether they wanted to support something labeled “fair.”

And that’s the point.

“Fairness” has become one of the most effective political words in modern campaigns—not because it’s clearly defined, but because it isn’t. It sounds virtuous. It feels right. And it quietly nudges voters toward a predetermined conclusion without ever forcing a real debate about the mechanics behind it.

Ask ten people what a “fair” congressional map looks like, and you’ll get ten different answers. What shape should a district be? Where should the lines be drawn? Should the districts be based on shared economic interests? Political balance? Something else? There is no neutral formula. There never has been.

Yet that didn’t stop Virginia’s referendum from presenting a specific political outcome as if it were morally obvious.

That’s not accidental—it’s strategy.

This is how modern political messaging works. Wrap a contested idea in universally appealing language, and opposition suddenly sounds unreasonable. Who wants to vote against fairness?

But here’s the reality: redistricting isn’t about abstract ideals. It’s about power. The Constitution assigns that power to state legislatures for a reason—it forces these decisions into a transparent, accountable political process.

When the referees start telling you which outcome is “fair,” you’re not witnessing a neutral process—you’re being handed a conclusion.

And if we’re serious about self-government, that should concern us—no matter which side is doing the steering.