The United States Supreme Court just delivered dual victories for constitutional order and the continuation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States. By turning away an emergency appeal from Virginia Democrats and greenlighting Alabama’s 2023 congressional map, the high court halted aggressive 11th-hour Democratic efforts to manipulate the electoral landscape. These actions not only re-anchored our elections to the bedrock principle of the rule of law but they also provided a probable check on the Progressive slide overtaking the Democratic Party.
In Virginia, the issue was a fundamental failure of legislative due process. In an aggressive push to secure an additional four congressional seats, Richmond Democratic lawmakers fast-tracked a constitutional amendment to bypass state-level protections against gerrymandering.
However, the Virginia Constitution strictly mandates that any amendment must pass two separate legislative sessions, explicitly separated by an election cycle. Because the proposal was advanced well after early voting for the 2025 cycle had already commenced – even though greater numbers of voters would subsequently be voting – the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the procedural defect incurably tainted the ensuing referendum. When state Democrats filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the high court declined to intervene.
Critics of the ruling, including Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, have accused the courts of “nullifying” the will of the three million voters who approved the referendum. But this argument is fundamentally flawed. A majority vote cannot validate an unconstitutional process. If a state government can ignore its own founding charter to achieve preferred electoral outcomes, then constitutional protections are reduced to mere suggestions. The judiciary’s role is to act as a bulwark against such overreach, ensuring that the rules of democracy are applied fairly and consistently.
Meanwhile, in the Alabama case, the United States Supreme Court vacated a deeply flawed lower court order that had hijacked Alabama’s congressional redistricting process. The high court reaffirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that the power to draw electoral maps belongs to the people’s representatives, not to unelected federal judges.
For too long, partisan activists have weaponized the federal judiciary to achieve political outcomes they could not win at the ballot box. The lower courts’ mandate – which aggressively tossed out a map enacted by the Alabama legislature in 2023 and imposed a court-drawn map requiring a second majority-minority district – was a textbook example of judicial overreach. It effectively forced the state to engage in blatant racial gerrymandering under the guise of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court’s decision to halt this unconstitutional mandate is a necessary corrective. It ensures that Alabanians are treated as citizens of their state and local communities rather than mere demographic data points to be sorted by federal fiat.
The national redistricting map remains highly contested, but the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line in the sand. Elections must be governed by stable, lawful, and constitutionally sound boundaries – not by chaotic, hyper-partisan maneuvers that cut corners or rely on judicial activism.