In addition to a presidential vote we could fairly call existential, there is another highly consequential choice Virginia voters will make on November 3rd: Whether or not to amend the state constitution to change the way that congressional and state legislative districts are drawn. On our ballots, it will appear as Amendment 1. The full text of the Amendment and an explanation is here on the Department of Elections website, but this is what you’ll see on your ballot:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission,
consisting of eight members of the General Assembly and eight citizens of the Commonwealth,
that is responsible for drawing the congressional and state legislative districts that will be
subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the
Governor's involvement and to give the responsibility of drawing districts to the Supreme Court
of Virginia if the redistricting commission fails to draw districts or the General Assembly fails to
enact districts by certain deadlines?
Let me begin by saying that I am no expert in this arena, and that I am sharing my opinion on the matter only because several 9th District Dems (and a few others) have asked me to do so. There are many other people writing about this, including a goodly number of Democratic leaders, elected and otherwise, who oppose the Amendment. I’m weighing in, based on a fair bit of research on the issue, and rather extensive exchanges with two people who support the amendment – Delegate Sam Rasoul, and Brian Cannon, Director of Fair Maps, Virginia – and one who opposes it, a very astute, long-time activist and colleague from here in Washington County. Each of these three people steered me to multiple opinion pieces and analyses of the Amendment, which augmented my own search. Based on all of this, here are the reasons I will be voting “Yes” to Amendment 1:
1. I deeply trust several of the individuals and groups endorsing Amendment 1, folks who are savvy and completely committed to real democratic reform. Among a long list, this includes the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, the ACLU and the League of Women Voters. Of critical importance, several African American Senators in Virginia’s legislature, including Jennifer McClellan, Mamie Locke and Louise Lucas also support the amendment. And Sam Rasoul, whom I know personally and deeply respect.
It’s true that there are very smart folks on the other side of this issue, including my colleague in Washington County, Jennifer Lewis and Linda Perriello, among others. Their opposition has given me pause and pushed me to dig deeper. Democracy advocates most definitely don’t all agree on this; but to hear some of the critiques of Amendment 1, it is ‘enshrining gerrymandering into our constitution’, ‘blocking real reform’, and making the redistricting process worse than what we currently have. Really? Why would Common Cause and the Brennan Center support such a thing? Or Senators McClellan, Locke and Lucas? When I personally don’t have a significant amount of experience or expertise on an issue, I look for guidance to the people and organizations that do, and in this case, most of them support Amendment 1.
2. I believe that the Amendment itself, for all of its flaws, moves us to a considerably better place than what we have for drawing our state and congressional districts. The flaws are not insignificant: legislators have too much power, both as half the membership of the Commission charged with drawing district lines, and indirectly as the ones who put forth names of 64 private citizens, from whom 8 will be selected by a panel of retired circuit court judges. Would it be better to take legislators out of the process altogether? No doubt. From my understanding, however, a truly independent commission with no politicians involved had too little support from either party to have a chance of passing, in 2019, 2020 and likely for some time to come.
The other legitimate concern is that, should the Commission be unable to reach a supermajority consensus on redistricting after two attempts, the ball is handed off to the Virginia Supreme Court. The SCOVA then selects a “master” to draw the lines, and what they come up with is then considered and, presumably approved by the Court (Planned legislation in the 2021 General Assembly will require two such masters, one a Democrat, the other a Republican). That’s hardly a citizen-led outcome, and the consistent rightward leaning of this court is undeniable. But…
3. The Virginia Supreme Court will be bound by multiple criteria designed to ensure that district lines will be drawn based on fairness, racial justice, minority community representation and reasonableness at the level of preserving neighborhoods and communities of interest. These specific criteria are in Virginia law now, thanks to Senator McClellan’s SB 717, passed in 2020. Whether it’s the Commission or the SCOVA, the redistricting criteria are the same, and they are binding.
4. Another critique is that it does not go far enough to ensure protection of minority voters and communities, or by some people’s telling, actually makes racial gerrymandering more likely. I frankly just don’t get this. Not only do I trust Senators McClellan, Locke and Lucas on this, but both the Amendment and SB 717 include language mandating racial fairness and minority participation. SB 717 put protections for minorities into our law, with multiple, very specific requirements designed to ensure this.
5. Perhaps most important of all, the Amendment mandates a transparent process, including public hearings and the opportunity for citizens to read and comment upon the Commission’s proposals throughout the process. We’ll also know which Commission members vote to support the body’s recommendations and which vote against them, creating disincentives to extreme partisanship among the legislators on the Commission. Of course, given that the Amendment requires six out of eight legislators and the same number of citizens to support the recommendations, the potential for just two partisans to block sound redistricting, and punt to the Court, is certainly real. But it is by no means a foregone conclusion.
6. Finally, there are a couple of arguments from folks opposed to the Amendment that, IMO, don’t hold water. First is the claim that because ‘gerrymandering’ is never mentioned in the Amendment, it doesn’t fight the problem of gerrymandering. Accepting the limits and flaws to the Amendment as they are is one thing, but there is no question in my mind that the whole point of a Commission with 50% representation of citizens, specific criteria that ensure fairness, and mandatory transparency throughout the process is to fight gerrymandering.
The second argument that is floating about is that ‘dark money’ is pouring into the ‘vote yes’ campaign. There is money coming in from outside the state in support of the Amendment, roughly equal to the amount that over a thousand grassroots Virginia residents have donated, but it is hardly ‘dark’ and certainly not nefarious. According to Brian Cannon, ED of Fair Maps Virginia, it has come from three sources: Unite America, the Arnold Foundation and a private individual, Jay Fayson, associated with the Arnold Foundation. Unite America is a non-partisan group that has been working on pro-democracy reforms for several years. It’s true that their money comes primarily from Kathryn Murdock, one of Rupert Murdock’s children. But she is in many ways a black sheep in that family, having fought against much of which the elder Murdock embodies, including her work to promote real democracy. Unite America also supports Rank Choice voting and Mail-in voting, hardly the darling causes of the right.
John and Laura Arnold are Republicans and Republican donors. But the focus of their foundation’s work is and has been on lowering prescription drug prices, reversing mass incarceration and supporting redistricting reform. Unless we subscribe to the belief that only Democrats can honestly support and seek real reform in our electoral politics, support from groups such as this should not constitute a fatal ‘contamination’ of the effort.
Amendment 1 has flaws. I have my reservations. But I’m convinced that it represents real progress in the drawing of electoral maps, and a significant step in the broader fight against gerrymandering. That’s why I’ll be voting “Yes” on November 3rd.