Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court made headlines by overturning a statewide election that approved new congressional maps, a move described as "wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history." The court's decision, which dismissed the voter-approved constitutional amendment for redistricting, has sparked a flurry of debates and analysis. Notably, legal scholar Jonathan Turley provided his take in the NY Post, yet curiously avoided discussing the court's actual reasoning in his lengthy commentary.

Virginia's constitutional amendment process is clear: an amendment must pass the state legislature twice in two different sessions before it reaches the ballot for a public vote. This process was adhered to, with the amendment passing in both the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions, followed by public approval. However, the Supreme Court introduced an unexpected twist by asserting that early voting disrupted the sequence mandated by the state constitution, leading to a rejection of the amendment based on a technicality that the second legislative session did not occur "after the next general election."

Turley's article refrained from delving into these legal gymnastics. Instead, it echoed the court’s unusual metaphors and focused more on political narratives, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the judicial logic—or lack thereof—behind the decision. His avoidance of detailed legal analysis, particularly in a case involving significant constitutional questions, is telling. It appears Turley chose not to challenge the court's shaky interpretation and instead, catered to the sensibilities of his predominantly conservative readership.

This situation is further complicated by actions in other states. Following Virginia's attempt at redistricting, states like Florida and Tennessee pursued their redistricting efforts, cited by Turley as defensive moves in response to broader national politics. However, he conspicuously omits any mention of Texas, the state that initiated this redistricting "total war," focusing instead on Virginia's actions, which ironically involved a more democratic process involving voter participation.

The broader implication of Turley’s and the court’s stance suggests a discomfort with the changing demographics and political landscape of Virginia—a state that has shifted from its historically conservative roots to a more diverse and politically varied populace. The court's decision, and Turley’s support of it without substantial legal justification, seem to reflect a deeper unease with these demographic shifts rather than a dispassionate interpretation of law.

In his piece, Turley also touches upon the growing calls for court expansion, framing it as an overreaction to judicial decisions like this one. However, by sidestepping a deep dive into the judicial reasoning behind such a controversial decision, he inadvertently strengthens the argument for why many feel the need to reevaluate the composition and balance of the courts.

As this legal and political drama continues to unfold, the focus should perhaps shift from the specifics of the case to the broader question of what these legal battles signify about the state of American democracy, where the letter of the law might be used to undermine the spirit of fair representation and voter intent.