Virginia’s Redistricting Power Grab and the Hypocrisy of Gerrymandering

My friends, there’s a political firestorm brewing — and it’s not really about “fairness” and maps. It’s about power.

Virginia Democrats are attempting to redraw congressional districts in a way that would shift the state from a 6–5 split to a staggering 10–1 advantage. On paper, it looks like just another redistricting fight. In reality, it’s a masterclass in political maneuvering, legal jiu-jitsu, and opportunism.

Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2020 that created a bipartisan redistricting commission—whatever that’s supposed to mean. The goal was simple—take direct control out of lawmakers’ hands and reduce overt political gamesmanship. Now, just a few years later, legislators are attempting to reverse that amendment and reclaim redistricting authority.

But constitutional amendments don’t just vanish because politicians change their minds. There’s a defined legal process. Amendments must pass the legislature, be posted publicly for 90 days before the next House of Delegates election, survive that election cycle, pass again, and then go to a statewide referendum.

That timeline matters.

In this case, the amendment to reverse the commission was not posted within the required window before the general election. A lower court ruled the effort invalid. The Virginia Supreme Court, however, has allowed the referendum process to move forward while legal questions remain.

Translation? The voters may cast ballots on a measure that could later be ruled procedurally illegal.

Redistricting is political. The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures authority over determining congressional districts. But if a state sets its own procedural guardrails, those guardrails must be followed. If they aren’t, it becomes less about strategy and more about legality.

The deeper issue is consistency. If we believe redistricting is a matter of principle—fairness, transparency, constitutional order—then that principle must apply whether it benefits Democrats or Republicans.

But far too many people have selected outrage.

This fight in Virginia could influence the balance of power in Congress. It could also test whether constitutional processes and state statutes still mean something when political power is on the line.

When procedures are ignored in pursuit of advantage, the real casualty isn’t just a map—it’s trust.

And trust is the final casualty in the life of a republic.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

🧭 Constitutional process vs. partisan power play
📜 Voter-approved rules cannot be ignored
🗳️ The 2020 redistricting amendment reversal attempt
⏳ Procedural violations before the House of Delegates election
⚔️ Political double standards on gerrymandering
🏛️ Follow the rules or undermine the rule of law

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.

You don't have to read everything — just the right thing. 1440's daily newsletter distills the day's biggest stories from 100+ sources into one quick, 5-minute read. It's the fastest way to stay sharp, sound informed, and actually understand what's happening in the world. Join 4.5 million readers who start their day the smart way.

Join for free today!

My friends, we are living in an age of delusion dressed up as moral progress.

At the Munich Security Conference, Hillary Clinton hosted a panel called “Girls Just Want to Have Fundamental Rights.” The premise is that powerful movements are suppressing women worldwide. And let me be clear — there are ideologies that harm women around the world. They’re just not the ones Hillary Clinton and the Left rail against.

Hillary’s first “female” guest was Representative Sarah McBride — the first openly transgender member of Congress.

That’s right. The first “female” voice on a panel about protecting girls was a biological male.

If you can’t define what a girl is, you can’t defend girls. If words mean nothing, rights won’t either.

Truth isn’t cruel. And pretending it doesn’t exist is the real danger.

There’s a simple question hiding underneath every redistricting fight:

Are we outraged by principle—or by outcome?

It’s easy to spot hypocrisy when the other side redraws lines. It’s harder to look in the mirror when the same constitutional tools benefit our own team. That’s the consistency test. And most political commentary fails it.

Redistricting is, by design, political. The Constitution gives state legislatures authority over congressional districts. That reality may make some uncomfortable, but discomfort doesn’t nullify the structure. The real question is not whether politics is involved—it always is. The question is whether the rules governing the politics are being applied.

If a state amends its constitution to create guardrails, those guardrails matter. If procedures require public notice and defined timelines, those timelines matter. When rules are inconvenient but still binding, integrity demands we respect them anyway.

Consistency is what separates principle from partisanship.

Selective outrage is corrosive. When voters only object to process violations that harm their side, they unintentionally signal that process never mattered in the first place. That accelerates a dangerous cycle: the other side pushes harder, bends more, justifies further. Trust erodes. Cynicism replaces civic confidence.

A republic cannot function long-term on outcome-based morality.

The temptation in every political era is to say, “Yes, but this time is different.” This race matters more. This majority is more important. This map is too consequential to let procedure stand in the way.

That logic may win a cycle.

It weakens a system.

Consistency is not weakness. It’s the evidence of character. It’s the discipline to defend a rule even when it benefits your opponent. And in the long run, character advances one’s cause much more than opportunism ever could.

Once the rules become optional, they won’t just be optional for one side.

They’ll be optional for everyone.