Last month, Virginians voted to redistrict. They would take the old congressional map, split roughly between Republicans and Democrats, and replace it with a map that left the Republican Party with a single safe seat, covering the southwest of the state. This was part of a national response, by Democrats, to a Trump-led effort to protect the fragile Republican majority in the House through mid-decade redistricting and hyperpartisan gerrymanders. It seemed, initially, that President Trump’s bid to gerrymander Congress was a bust. Republicans in Indiana refused to play ball, and Democrats in California retaliated in kind. After Virginia’s referendum approving the new maps, it appeared that the Democratic Party had fought the gerrymandering wars to a draw. But then the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and giving Republican-led states in the South an opening to erase their majority-minority districts under the guise of partisan gerrymandering, the more partisan the better. A few days later, a group of Indiana lawmakers who rejected the president’s push to redistrict the state lost their primaries, demonstrating Trump’s continuing hold over the Republican base. And on Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the referendum results, invalidating the vote on a technicality. In Virginia, the process to amend the state Constitution has three stages. First, the legislature must vote on an amendment. Then, there must be an intervening election, after which the legislature must vote a second time. The amendment then goes to voters to be ratified or rejected. In their lawsuit attacking the process, Virginia Republicans said that the first vote in the legislature happened too soon before the November election — early voting had already begun — and thus voters did not have the necessary notice. Democrats argued that, as defined in statute and according to the constitution, an “election” was the day itself, not early voting, and voters had plenty of notice. In a 4-3 decision on partisan lines, the State Supreme Court sided with Republicans. After noting the small margin of victory for the referendum, the court held that the there was too little time between the vote and the election which, it argued, included the entire early voting period. The referendum was invalid. Key Virginia Democrats quickly acquiesced to the decision. Don Scott, the speaker of the House of Delegates, said, “We respect the decision of the Supreme Court,” while Gov. Abigail Spanberger said that she was “disappointed” but didn’t challenge the ruling or the court’s authority. This is a mistake. To start, the ruling is absurd. As the dissent notes, “The majority has broadened the meaning of the word ‘election,’ as used in the Virginia Constitution, to include the early voting period. This is in direct conflict with how both Virginia and federal law define an election.” The statute, the dissent says, distinguishes “early voting” from the election itself, defining it as a period “prior to” and “immediately preceding” the election. The result is to create a voting paradox of sorts. “Applying the majority’s definition of election … creates a causality paradox: An election is a process that begins with early voting, but early voting must precede an election by 45 days. The majority’s definition creates an infinite voting loop that appears to have no established beginning, only a definitive end: Election Day.” What’s more, the effect of this new definition of “election” would be to vastly complicate the state’s judicial system, as the Constitution forbids courts from pulling voters into the judicial process “during the time of holding any election at which he is entitled to vote.” Here again is the dissent: “Applying the majority’s definition means that, for the duration of every election, courts could not mandate that voters attend trials in virtually any capacity, other than as a criminal defendant.” There is also the fact that the court had a chance to halt the process earlier this year. It didn’t. To then invalidate the referendum when it won is to suggest that the law here was less important than the politics. But more than the absurdity of the ruling is the basic principle. The referendum wasn’t just an election; it was the people of Virginia exercising their right to amend their Constitution as they see fit. On what basis can the State Supreme Court, a creature of that Constitution, invalidate a sovereign decision of the whole people? The court may have the right to say what the law is, but this doesn’t extend to a veto over the people’s right to change the fundamental rules of their political system. One response is to say, as the court majority did, that the people of Virginia failed to abide by the stated process. But this response runs into the fundamental, underlying principle of American government: popular sovereignty. Here, I’ll yield the floor to James Wilson, the Pennsylvania jurist, legal scholar and delegate to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. Addressing the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, Wilson observed: The truth is that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our Constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our Constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our Constitutions control in act, as well as in right. The consequence is, that the people may change the Constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them. Critically, it was under this exact theory that Americans wiped away the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution. “These important truths, sir, are far from being merely speculative,” Wilson said. “We, at this moment, speak and deliberate under their immediate and benign influence.” Virginians spoke and deliberated under their influence as well. They took for granted that they, the people of the commonwealth, had an absolute right to amend their Constitution as they saw fit. A narrow, partisan majority of the State Supreme Court believes that the people overstepped their bounds. But it is the court that has gone beyond the scope of its authority. And the correct response is to fight back in the name of the people, who made their choice in a free and fair contest. Democrats must meet the moment. Or move over for people who will. What I WroteI wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, and how it rests on a vision of the Constitution that wields “equal protection” as a weapon against equality. At a minimum, the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were written, passed and ratified to end the subordination of Black Americans and ensure their representation in the political community. It is perverse that this Supreme Court has used both amendments to facilitate what might become the largest reduction in Black representation at the federal and state levels since the end of Reconstruction and the “redemption” of the South. Words meant to secure the political equality of all Americans are being raised as weapons to deprive them of just that. Now ReadingOlúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò on elite impunity for Boston Review. Pema Levy on the neo-Plessy framework of Louisiana v. Callais for Mother Jones. David Cole on Louisiana v. Callais as a “second ‘redemption’ ” for The New York Review of Books. Kelefa Sanneh on Kimberlé Crenshaw for The New Yorker. Hannah Garden-Monheit on the Supreme Court’s sharp move to the right on economic policy as well as social and democratic rights, for The New Republic. Photo of the Week
A demonstrator at a recent No Kings protest in Charlottesville, Va. Now Eating: Salmon Gyro BowlsA very easy weeknight dinner. (Having the kind of week where this kind of thrown-together dinner is a necessity.) Recipe from NYT Cooking. Ingredients
For the white sauce
For the cucumber salad
Directions Heat the oven to 400 degrees and arrange racks in the upper and lower third of the oven. Line one large sheet pan with parchment paper and another with aluminum foil. Prepare the salmon: In a large bowl, combine the olive oil, lemon juice, cilantro, garlic, cumin, paprika, oregano, salt, black pepper and crushed red pepper. Dip the salmon into the marinade until evenly coated. Transfer the salmon to a plate and set aside. Add the onions and tomatoes to the large bowl and mix until coated. Spread the onion-tomato mixture evenly on the foil-lined sheet pan and roast for 20 minutes, stirring once or twice as needed. After the onion-tomato mixture has roasted for 20 minutes, transfer the salmon, skin side down, to the remaining sheet pan along with any leftover sauce. Add to the oven to roast until the fish is tender and flakes easily; continue roasting the onion-tomato mixture until it has softened significantly and gets slightly browned around the edges, 12 to 15 minutes. While everything roasts, combine the ingredients for the white sauce in a medium bowl. Once the salmon and vegetables are done roasting, combine all the ingredients for the cucumber salad and lightly toss. To serve each portion, place the amount of rice you’d like into a bowl. Top with salmon, the roasted tomato-onion mixture and cucumber salad, and finish off with a generous dollop of white sauce. Thanks for reading. You will soon start to get my columns emailed to you too. Read past editions of the newsletter here. If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Have feedback? Send me a note at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com. You can also follow me on Twitter (@jbouie), Instagram and TikTok.
|
