Virginia Supreme Court justices striking down redistricting maps as Democratic politicians react and discuss options in a formal courtroom setting.
Virginia Supreme Court justices striking down redistricting maps as Democratic politicians react and discuss options in a formal courtroom setting.
Imagem gerada por IA

Democratas da Virgínia avaliam opções após tribunal anular mapas de redistritamento

Imagem gerada por IA

A Suprema Corte da Virgínia invalidou na sexta-feira os novos mapas do congresso que os eleitores haviam aprovado em abril. Os democratas agora consideram suas respostas, incluindo um plano radical para substituir toda a corte, embora os líderes pareçam pouco inclinados a segui-lo imediatamente.

Em uma decisão de 4 votos a 3, a alta corte estadual decidiu que os democratas violaram procedimentos ao incluir o referendo nas cédulas de votação. Esperava-se que os mapas alterassem a delegação da Câmara dos Representantes dos EUA da Virgínia de uma vantagem democrata de 6-5 para uma de 10-1. Os eleitores aprovaram as mudanças por uma margem estreita depois que grupos alinhados aos democratas gastaram mais de 64 milhões de dólares no esforço. A decisão mantém as fronteiras anteriores do estado em vigor.

O que as pessoas estão dizendo

Usuários do X criticam amplamente o possível plano dos democratas da Virgínia de substituir a Suprema Corte, classificando-o como uma manobra de poder hipócrita após a decisão sobre o redistritamento, com alguns vendo a medida como um ataque à democracia e outros observando-a como uma resposta desesperada a esforços de gerrymandering bloqueados.

Artigos relacionados

Illustration of Virginia Supreme Court nullifying Democratic redistricting plan with 4-3 ruling
Imagem gerada por IA

Virginia supreme court nullifies democratic redistricting plan

Reportado por IA Imagem gerada por IA

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved redistricting plan that Democrats hoped would add four House seats. The 4-3 ruling cited a procedural error in how the measure reached the ballot. The decision comes amid a broader wave of Republican-led map changes in Southern states.

The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled Friday that a voter-approved redistricting plan violated state constitutional procedures. The 4-3 decision nullifies the April referendum and keeps the state's existing congressional maps in place. Democrats had sought the change to gain a stronger edge ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Reportado por IA

The Virginia Supreme Court has struck down a congressional map approved by voters in a recent referendum, ruling it unconstitutional. Democratic leaders have criticized the decision as overturning the will of the people.

A Tazewell County Circuit Court has paused certification of a Virginia referendum passed on April 21, 2026, that returns congressional redistricting power to the Democrat-controlled General Assembly. The measure passed with 51.5% of the vote, reversing a 2020 bipartisan commission approved by 66% to 34%. Legal challenges cite violations of the state constitution's amendment process.

Reportado por IA

Tennessee Republicans voted Thursday to pass new congressional maps expected to eliminate the state's only Democratic U.S. House seat. Republican Governor Bill Lee signed the measure into law shortly afterward. The move followed a Supreme Court decision striking down certain majority-black districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's April 29, 2026, Callais v. Louisiana decision striking down Louisiana's congressional map as a racial gerrymander (as covered in this series), experts warn the reinterpretation of Voting Rights Act protections could endanger minority representation nationwide. Louisiana has extended suspension of its U.S. House primaries until at least July 2026 amid expectations of a redraw.

Reportado por IA

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on April 29 that Louisiana's congressional map, which included a second majority-Black district, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires proof of intentional discrimination, not just disparate impact. The decision, in Louisiana v. Callais, limits race-based redistricting and prompts new maps in several states.

 

 

 

Este site usa cookies

Usamos cookies para análise para melhorar nosso site. Leia nossa política de privacidade para mais informações.
Recusar