Judge Halts Another Democrat Scheme To Rig State Congressional Maps

A Maryland judge has enjoined the state's Board of Elections from pushing out a ballot question drafted on the back of a broken law.

Democrats propose purging Virginia Supreme Court so they can force through illegal power-grab



Democrats have been racking up the losses in recent weeks. In hopes of turning around their luck, they're considering the possibility of purging the Virginia Supreme Court and packing it with young yes-men.

Quick background

Following a $60 million Democrat propaganda campaign featuring former President Barack Obama, Gov. Abigail Spanberger, and other radicals, Virginia voted last month to pass a constitutional amendment that would enable the General Assembly to adopt a new gerrymandered map.

Instead of the current map, where Democrats and Republicans control and are positioned to continue controlling six and five districts, respectively, the new map would ensure that 10 out of the state's 11 congressional seats would go to Democrats in the upcoming midterm election.

'The gut-and-pack scheme sets aside any pretense of principle.'

While the Virginia Supreme Court permitted the vote on the amendment to take place, the court made clear in advance that it might ultimately have to "address" questions about the legality of the amendment and the corresponding referendum, which were deemed invalid by a lower court in the case Scott v. McDougle.

The Old Dominion's high court ruined Democrats' weekend on Friday, issuing a 4-3 decision in McDougle declaring the amendment unconstitutional. In the ruling, the court underscored that "the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia" because the first legislative vote on the amendment occurred after voting in the general election for the House of Delegates had already begun.

RELATED: Republican Indiana state senator has no regrets about redistricting vote

Virginia Supreme Court. Mike Kropf-Pool/Getty Images

"In this case, the Commonwealth submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement in Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia," said the court. "This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void."

As the result of ruling, the the 2021-era congressional maps, where Democrats and Republicans enjoyed a 6-5 split, will serve as the governing maps for the 2026 midterm elections.

Nuclear meltdown

Democrats bitterly lashed out at the Virginia Supreme Court over its invalidation of their illegal power-grab.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), for instance, said that the "decision to overturn an entire election is an unprecedented and undemocratic action that cannot stand."

Jeffries promised that Democrats "are exploring all options to overturn this shocking decision."

Virginia Rep. Jennifer McClellan similarly claimed that "all options" are on the table and told "The Hill Sunday," "We’re going to fight every way possible, whether that’s through the courts, whether that’s through legislatures, or whether that’s at the ballot box."

While some state Democrats are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court might hear an appeal and give new life to their illegal gerrymander, others are scheming ways to eliminate key institutional obstacles to similar power-grabs in Virginia.

The steal-power-quick scheme

Democrat lawmakers including Jeffries and U.S. House members from Virginia had a private call on Saturday to discuss ways of forcing through their gerrymander and/or flipping two or three GOP-held seats under the existing map, three participants and two individuals briefed on the matter told the New York Times.

On the call, Democrats raised the possibility of purging the entire Virginia Supreme Court with the aim of handpicking justices who would reinstate their gerrymandered maps.

While Democrats might easily be able to find replacement justices whose loyalty to the ruling party trumps their loyalty to the state and U.S. Constitutions, they first need a way to empty the current bench.

According to the Times, some congressional and state Democrats are considering the possibility of lowering the mandatory retirement age for Virginia Supreme Court justices — an idea proposed in a Friday blog post by Quinn Yeargain, a woke associate law professor at Michigan State University.

"Current law sets the mandatory retirement age at 73: 'Any member who attains 73 years of age shall be retired 20 days after the convening of the next regular session of the General Assembly following his seventy-third birthday,'" wrote Yeargain. "This number is arbitrary. States around the country with similar laws mandate retirement across a wide range of ages. Virginia lawmakers can simply lower theirs. Make it 54 for Supreme Court justices — the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion — and make it take effect immediately."

The plan, as reportedly laid on Democrats' Saturday call, would consist of multiple steps:

  • In his January ruling in McDougle, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley declared invalid the Virginia constitutional amendment effort to gerrymander the maps because county officials had failed to post notice of it at courthouses and other locations at least three months before the election. Democrats would attempt to use this ruling to invalidate the 2020 constitutional amendment that created Virginia's independent redistricting commission. Democrats, if successful in arguing that insufficient notice was given in the case of the commission-creating amendment, would be able to enact whatever map they wanted.
  • In order to ensure that this subversive plot could proceed, Democrats in the General Assembly would reportedly lower the mandatory retirement age for the Virginia Supreme Court justices to 54, thereby forcing out all current justices. Instead of principled authorities on the bench, the General Assembly would appoint Democrat lawyers to fill the vacancies.

The Times' sources involved with the call said that Spanberger, who would have to sign off on any legislation that lowered the judicial retirement age, had not been briefed on the proposal.

Jeffries' spokesman declined to provide the Times with comment. Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D) similarly declined to provide comment.

U.S. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D), the son of Indian immigrants, said that he was among those on the call supportive of the plan to purge the state's supreme court.

"Everyone has got to have a strong stomach right now; this is a complete disaster waiting to happen if people are timid," said Subramanyam.

By contrast, Ryan McDougle, Republican leader of the Virginia Senate, said, "This is a brazen assault on our democracy.

"In our nation's 250th Anniversary, Democrats knowingly violate the Constitution, ram through deceptive ballot language to deceive and divide voters, then demand the Court not rule until after the vote. These hypocrites now pretend to defend democracy by removing lawfully appointed Supreme Court Justices because they blocked their illegal rewrite of the Constitution."

The Virginia GOP stated, "Those claiming to care about fairness and democracy should respect the rule of law instead of threatening to pack the Supreme Court and nullify the Virginia Constitution."

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley wrote, "The sack-and-pack scheme sets aside any pretense of principle. The Democrats would simply adopt a ridiculously low retirement age for the sole purpose of populating the court with reliable and robotic justices. The fact that an academic and various pundits would expressly float such an idea is another chilling reminder of the growing radicalization on the left."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Virginia Supreme Court seems skeptical about Democratic gerrymandering



Virginia voted last week in favor of a referendum to adopt a gerrymandered congressional map that would all but guarantee that 10 out of the state's 11 congressional seats go to Democrats in the upcoming midterm election.

There remains a good chance, however, that the new map may not ultimately be adopted.

Background

There are numerous legal battles across Virginia over whether the gerrymandering referendum that passed Tuesday is lawful. One of those battles — Scott v. McDougle — is now before the Virginia Supreme Court.

In October 2025, Republican state lawmakers and members of the Virginia Redistricting Commission filed a lawsuit, claiming that the special session reconvened late last year to consider a constitutional amendment on redistricting was invalid as it was called not by the governor, who holds the exclusive right to do so, but by the speaker of the state House.

The complaint noted further that while the Virginia House of Delegates "has no constitutional authority to propose a plan to redraw or reapportion districts" for the U.S. Congress, as this falls under the purview of the Virginia Redistricting Commission, the state House nevertheless usurped the authority.

To bypass the commission, lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment to redraw the congressional map. Getting this amendment on the April 21 ballot required the approval of a corresponding resolution in two separate legislative sessions on either side of a state election. Challengers contend that this process was bungled and legally flawed.

RELATED: GOP bill would squeeze Democratic hives out of Virginia — and back into DC

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D), a supporter of the gerrymandering scheme. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled on Jan. 27 that the proposed constitutional amendment was unlawful, but the Virginia Supreme Court subsequently ruled that Virginians could still vote for it in the statewide April 21 referendum while the case proceeds.

The day after the referendum passed, Hurley blocked the state from certifying the results of the vote, ruling that the legislature's constitutional amendment and the special election on it were invalid.

Skeptical of Democratic plot

On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in Scott v. McDougle.

One Virginia justice extracted concessions from the defense at the outset that the "yes" vote in the referendum "doesn't tell us anything" about the merits of the challengers' claims, and that the Virginia General Assembly didn't follow its own procedural rules with regard to the special session during which the new congressional map was passed.

Multiple justices expressed skepticism about the validity of that special session.

One justice said that contrary to the previous expectation in Virginia that the legislature wouldn't sit year-round, the Democratic "interpretation of the special session would allow them to sit in continuous session for the better part of two years."

The same justice appeared receptive to the argument by Thomas McCarthy, attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, that "it's sort of a nonsensical position to say that the special session exists through a regular session" — referencing the overlap of the 2024 special session and the 2025 general session.

The justices also did not appear entirely convinced by Democrats' argument that enough time had passed between when the amendment was first passed and the 2025 state election. The legislature voted on the amendment in October, weeks after early voting for the 2025 election had already begun.

"What is your position — your client's position — regarding a constitutional amendment that is adopted at 6 p.m. on Election Day with an hour left at the polls?" asked one justice. "Is that still the next general election?"

Virginia Solicitor General Tillman Breckenridge responded that the amendment must only be passed before Election Day, rather than on it.

McCarthy argued to the contrary, claiming that for the amendment to have been valid, it should have been passed before the entire voting period, not just before Election Day 2025. A Virginia Supreme Court justice subsequently noted that the amendment process responsible for the passage of the gerrymandering legislation was unprecedented.

Of note, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond ruled on Sunday in a separate but related case that the Virginia General Assembly did not exceed its authority when passing the amendment on redistricting.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Blatantly Dishonest Language’ On Virginia Ballots Fits Long Pattern Of Democrat Word Abuse

A judge blasted the Dems' flowery ballot language as 'flagrantly misleading', failing to 'accurately describe the proposed amendment.'

Unmasking The Muslim Brotherhood Ties Inside Ohio’s General Assembly

In a highly anticipated move, the Trump administration designated factions of the global Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations last month, an executive action with profound implications extending beyond the Middle East to America’s heartland. Astonishingly, a Somali-American legislator from Ohio, State Rep. Munira Abdullahi, D-Columbus, continues to serve as a national leader for the Muslim […]

Argentina's 'chainsaw' president tells the UN to shove its 'socialist' 'Pact for the Future'



Javier Milei, Argentina's self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" president, took office in December 2023. In the months since, he has taken a "chainsaw" to his predecessors' failed leftist policies as well as to some critics' doubts.

This week, he shredded globalist hopes that the Argentine Republic would be party to the United Nations' "Pact for the Future," telling the General Assembly, "Argentina will not back any policy that implies the restriction of individual freedoms or trade, nor the violation of the natural rights of individuals."

Milei — whose debut address to the U.N. took place within hours of reports indicating that Argentina's economic activity beat estimates, growing 1.7% in July — invited other nations to join him not only in "opposing this pact, but in the creation of a new agenda for this noble institution: the freedom agenda."

After noting that the U.N. served a noble purpose in the wake of World War II, Milei stated it has since "stopped upholding the principles outlined in its founding declaration and begun to mutate" — from an organization that once defended human rights to "one of the main drivers of the systematic violation of freedom."

Milei dragged the U.N. for its support of "global quarantines during the year 2020," which he suggested qualify as crimes against humanity, as well as its appeasement of "bloody dictatorships," such as Venezuela, and criticism of Israel.

According to the Argentine president, the U.N. was created "as a shield to protect the realm of men" but has "transformed into a multi-tentacled leviathan that seeks to decide not only what each nation-state should do but also how all the citizens of the world should live."

'It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector.'

Milei suggested that instead of seeking peace, the U.N. now seeks to impose an ideology on its members.

Distinguishing himself from a great many onlookers as a "libertarian liberal economist" rather than a politician, Milei warned of the threat posed by "collectivist policies" baked into the U.N.'s doomed 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The U.N.'s 2030 agenda includes 17 interlinked global goals designed to "transform the world."

Paul Tice, an adjunct professor of finance at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University, indicated in his recent book, "The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing Will Crater the Global Financial System," that:

Climate action (SDG #13) provides the intersectional glue for the entire progressive agenda embedded in the UN's sustainability program, with each individual cause drawing strength and further validation from the moral imperative of saving the planet from fossil fuels because, in the UN's telling, climate change also affects global health, poverty, hunger, and national security, and 'its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development.

Tice emphasized that sustainability is part of a broader anti-capitalist campaign that "borrows elements from both the totalitarian and reformist approaches of the past."

"It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector based on moral suasion, thereby avoiding the administrative cost and public sector responsibility associated with outright state ownership or direct government intervention," wrote Tice.

'[The sustainability agenda] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program.'

The professor noted further that "it embraces both state and progressive priorities but is mainly the fabrication of a permanent supranational bureaucracy of technocrats residing at multilateral agencies led by the UN and international NGOS such as the WEF, which effectively insulates it from accountability at the ballot box."

Sharing similar concerns about the U.N. agenda and its broader sustainability push, Milei suggested that the U.N. is now effectively a model of "super-national governance by international bureaucrats who intend to impose a certain way of life on the citizens of the world."

According to Milei, the "Pact for the Future," which 143 countries approved Sunday, is par for the course.

The pact overlaps with the 2030 sustainability agenda, laying out objectives for a multilateral approach to addressing changing weather patterns, so-called reproductive rights, and digital cooperation.

"Although well-intentioned in its goals, [the pact] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program that aims to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, liberty, and property of individuals," said the Argentine president. "It is an agenda that aims to solve poverty, inequality, and discrimination with legislation that only deepens these issues."

Milei suggested that the pact is another poorly conceived utopian program that will not withstand or tolerate humans' incompatible nature and choices.

"We want to officially express our dissent regarding the 'Pact of the Future' signed on Sunday," said Milei, concluding with a version of a quote from Thomas Paine: "Those who wish to reap the blessings of freedom must, as men, endure the fatigue of defending it."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Exclusive: Pennsylvania Lawmakers Appeal To Supreme Court In Case Challenging ‘Bidenbucks’

Plaintiffs want the court to weigh in on the critical question of standing: whether individual lawmakers can stand up to Biden's overreach.

Wisconsin Republicans Introduce Measures To Withdraw State From ERIC, Ban ‘Zuckbucks’ In Elections

The allowance of private money in elections is 'just a way to pervert the whole elections process and it needs to stop.'

Pennsylvania's Democratic governor set to cut off state funds to non-profit that cares for women who choose not to kill their babies: 'Shapiro is choosing extremism'



Democrats appear keen to defund those pro-life initiatives that leftist militants could not otherwise destroy or intimidate into closure.

Real Alternatives is a non-profit charitable organization that has for decades provided mothers with support and counseling in Pennsylvania and Indiana. It offers pregnant women temporary shelter; childbirth and parenting classes; referrals; abstinence education; adoption information; free pregnancy self-test kits; mentoring; and various other services.

Since Real Alternatives focuses on discussing and providing women with options other than the extermination of innocent life, it has drawn the ire of Democrats in Pennsylvania.

Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, who prioritized meeting with Planned Parenthood when taking office, made clear last month upon signing the 2023-2024 budget that the Commonwealth would be terminating its contract with Real Alternatives, intimating that protecting a "woman's freedom to choose" necessarily requires unilaterally supporting the choice to end life with the force of government.

The state General Assembly has allocated funding to Real Alternatives since 1995. The initiative was developed under pro-life Democratic Gov. Robert Casey and buttressed by the legislature's pro-life caucus after the state moved to bankroll abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Casey had stressed years ahead of Real Alternatives' state funding, "Abortion is unjust in every sense of that term. ... And the Democratic Party ... has been at the forefront of that injustice."

Real Alternatives indicated that it had been funded to the tune of $7.26 million in fiscal year 2022-2023 through the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. In turn, the non-profit distributed those funds to 83 centers.

Despite having helped over 350,000 women over the past three decades, Shapiro indicated Real Alternatives would lose state funding effective Dec. 31, 2023.

"For decades, taxpayer dollars have gone to fund Real Alternatives. My Administration will not continue that pattern – we will ensure women in this Commonwealth receive the reproductive health care they deserve," said Shapiro. "Pennsylvanians made clear by electing me as Governor that they support a woman's freedom to choose, and I will be steadfast in defending that right."

Val Arkoosh, the secretary of the PDHS whose experience administering anesthesia to women having abortions reportedly won her favor with some leftists, said in a statement, "The Shapiro Administration is taking a huge step forward today by ending the Real Alternatives contract after 30 years. Every woman seeking reproductive health care has the right to unbiased, medically accurate care and counsel."

Arkoosh, a failed candidate for the U.S. Senate, suggested further that Real Alternatives had not been a good steward of taxpayer resources.

"We believe the governor has been terribly misinformed about the need for the program and its success," Real Alternatives told the Inquirer. "Terminating this program will result in an increase in abortions throughout the commonwealth."

Nearly 60% of the women who come to Real Alternatives considering abortion reportedly choose to preserve the lives of their childresn, and 84% pressured into abortions end up alternatively choosing life.

Real Alternatives told LifeSiteNews, "For 27-plus years, Real Alternatives and its service providers have served close to 350,000 women at 1.9 million office visits. ... At every visit, women are directed to call Real Alternatives with any complaint or concerns about the services they received. There has never been a complaint from the 350,000 women we have served."

Eileen Artysh is the executive director of St. Margaret of Castello Maternity Home, which has received funding via Real Alternatives to provide housing, parental counseling, and other critical services to mothers. Artysh suggested this latest Democrat-led defunding effort will prove ruinous, but won't ultimately dissuade her from continuing to help, reported the Associated Press.

"Until there's that last penny left, I'm in this for the long haul," said Artysh. "And the moms that we help — I can't imagine deserting any of them."

Amy Scheuring, executive director of the Women's Choice Network, similarly noted last month in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that Shapiro's move to defund the non-profit will be to the detriment of women's health and safety.

"Local pregnancy help organizations exist to provide safe and confidential health care to those at risk for abortion before the decision and, if needed, after," wrote Scheuring. "Recently mischaracterized as 'fake centers' and 'pseudo-medical,' these locally operated pregnancy centers are directed by board certified physicians, staffed by RNs and certified ultrasound techs. There's nothing fake about offering women and men free STD testing, free ultrasounds and meaningful support."

Scheuring underscored that this decision, coupled with the promotion of self-administered abortions, serves to limit choice in the state and endanger women.

State Rep. Kate Klunk (R) noted in a recent opinion piece, "These organizations – whether supported by Real Alternatives or not – provide incredible services that stand, in fact, as real alternatives to abortion. Providing those alternatives is not extreme: shutting them off is."

"By ending the nearly 30-year-long state commitment to providing non-abortion pregnancy health services, Gov. Shapiro is choosing extremism and the interests of his campaign donors like Planned Parenthood at the expense of state funding for family support options, which the Commonwealth has provided for decades," continued Klunk. "The pro-abortion fringe has won the day."

"Gov. Shapiro’s actions will jeopardize the health of pregnant women and lives of babies across the commonwealth," stressed state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R). "Pennsylvania women currently have access to counseling and services that provide resources about parenting, adoption and other healthy alternatives to abortions. Gov. Shapiro’s decision amounts to a death sentence for countless Pennsylvania babies."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Connecticut Lawmakers Move To Block Parents From Seeing Teacher-Student Communications

Connecticut lawmakers introduced a bill to hide teacher-student communication on 'sensitive subjects' like gender identity from parents.