WASHINGTON- The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal by Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state electoral map was struck down by the state Supreme Court.
The judges had no comment and the legal outcome was not a surprise.
The United States Supreme Court does not have the authority to review or overturn rulings by state judges interpreting their state constitution, unless the decision is based on federal law or the United States Constitution.
But Virginia's ruling was a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters narrowly voted and approved a new electoral map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.
That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Worse still for Democrats, the judicial setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court's ruling in a Louisiana case strengthened Republicans.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled Southern states to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor black Democrats.
In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.
The Virginia Supreme Court's decision pointed to a procedural flaw revolving around the definition of “election.”
To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice: once before the “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then presented to the voters.
Last fall, Democrats proposed amending the state Constitution to allow for redistricting by mid-decade.
However, by a 4-3 vote, state judges said the General Assembly failed on the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.
By then, they said, about 40% of voters had cast early ballots.
In defense of the Legislature, state attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before Election Day, which complies with the state Constitution.
But the majority explained that “the noun 'election' should be distinguished from the noun phrase 'election day.'”
He reasoned that because early voters had already cast their ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.
The dissidents said that the elections took place on “election day” and that the proposal had been adopted before that time.
Lawyers for the state took that view in their appeal, arguing that under federal law elections take place on Election Day.
But the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without comment.
The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both chambers of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was deemed to have failed.
The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.
