Gerrymandering, the practice by which the majority party in a state legislature redraws congressional maps in ways that maximize the party’s representation in Congress, at times with bizarre boundaries, suddenly is a political weapon of choice.
California voters last November approved a Democrat-sponsored referendum, Proposition 50, an ostensibly temporary measure, by 64.4 percent to 35.6 percent. As a result, Republicans in that state face a loss of up to five seats in the House of Representatives this fall. In that expensive campaign, the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundations donated $10 million through an affiliate, the Fund for Policy Reform. Flush with victory, OSF is focusing on Virginia, where voters on Tuesday, April 21, will decide whether to approve a similar redistricting plan. The Fund already has donated $5 million to “Yes.”
National Legal and Policy Center last October described the details of the California proposal, the zeal for it among Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s and allied lawmakers, and why passage would undermine rule of law. The trigger was a redistricting proposal in Texas urged by Republican Governor Greg Abbott and President Donald Trump. The Republican-controlled legislature passed the measure, enraging many Democratic governors across the nation, and none more than Newsom. He and radical legislators quickly responded with Proposition 50, or the Election Rigging Response Act. The eventually victorious ballot initiative, whose wording explicitly and repeatedly denounced President Trump, often read like a presidential stump speech.
Trump’s pressure on Governor Abbott may have seemed out of bounds, but there was a valid reason behind it. For decades, Democrats had been using certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, and subsequent amendments to it, to apply affirmation action quotas to the makeup of Congress. Because nonwhites, particularly blacks, heavily vote Democrat, party leaders knew it was in their best interests to redraw post-Census congressional maps with racial favoritism in mind. That such gerrymandering likely was illegal mattered little to them. Civil rights activists who valued equality of result over liberty developed a multitude of dubious pretexts for filing lawsuits against states and localities for alleged gerrymandering. Aided by the 1982 VRA amendments and partisan federal judges, they usually have won.
The most effective resistance to this were a pair of lawsuits, two decades apart, that made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court’s decisions in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Shelby County v. Holder (2013), while not stopping the radical power play, did blunt it somewhat. The majority concluded that districts redrawn on the basis of race could be challenged and that redistricting must be subject to judicial “strict scrutiny.” These rulings, unfortunately, did not ban racial preferences. They merely stated that if a legislature takes racial balance into consideration in shaping congressional districts, it must do so in ways consistent with the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. In effect, the Left could continue gerrymandering by race as long as it wasn’t too obvious. A post-2020 Census case now before the Supreme Court, Louisiana v. Callais, already argued in March 2025 and reargued that October, might clarify the issue once and for all. But in the current political climate, it is hard to assume anything.
Egalitarian gerrymandering is a passion of Virginia’s new Democratic governor, Abigail Spanberger. During 2019-25 she represented Virginia’s 7th congressional district, an archetype swing district requiring a façade of centrism in order to win election. Campaigning for governor last year, she emphasized cost-of-living and federal budget issues. Once elected, having defeated incumbent Lieutenant GOP Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, she tossed away her mask of moderation. Writing this March in the Washington Examiner, Hugo Gurdon observed:
(T)he new governor is the very model of a modern bait-and-switch Democrat. Her party loves her for it. The gulf between her presentation and reality is the measure of her cynical approach to elections, treating them as confidence tricks in which winning is all and honor is nothing. Her modus operandi dispenses with the notion of democratic accountability. It is all about conning citizens rather than persuading them. In this approach, you do not show voters what you are or what you believe, then convince them that such attributes and policies are what is best for their future. Instead, you pretend you are not what you are and hope that the dupes will be fools enough to fall for it.
Three months in office, Governor Spanberger, aided by a now-Democratic majority legislature, is giving supporters what they want. She’s already advocated and signed legislation that mandates utility companies to spend more on energy-efficient technologies; bars landlords from evicting nonpaying tenants; raises the state minimum wage to $15 an hour by January 1, 2028; and forces state agencies into collective bargaining with public employee unions. Most egregiously, on her first day in office she ordered state agencies not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement even if a migrant is suspected of committing a serious crime. Such actions made her a logical choice to deliver her party’s rebuttal of President Trump’s State of the Union Address in February. If the redistricting referendum passes – which may well happen, if by a slim margin – she’s almost certain to be on the Democrat presidential ticket short list in 2028.
Virginia’s congressional redistricting ballot proposal, despite its claim to promote “fairness,” is a product of party machine politics. It reflects a desire to virtually delete the Republican Party’s presence in the U.S. House of Representatives. On February 4, Governor Spanberger signed the enabling bill passed by the state’s House of Delegates and Senate. Framed as a question, the ballot reads:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resume for all future redistricting after the 2030 Census?
A victory for “Yes” very likely could change the state’s current U.S. House delegation map from six Democrats and five Republicans to 10 Democrats and one Republican following the November elections. Only the 9th District, which covers the state’s mainly rural, mountainous western front, would remain solidly Republican. That’s what prominent supporters want. And they’re quite explicit about it. Without a trace of irony, Virginia House Speaker Don Scott (D-Portsmouth) declared in February that a 10-to-1 map “levels the playing field, and we’re ready to move forward.” That’s some level playing field! Opponents are closer to the mark. Jeff Ryer, the Republican Party of Virginia’s new chairman,noted that if “Yes” wins, Virginia would become “the most gerrymandered state in the country – a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.”
Gov. Spanberger and her supporters would have Virginians believe that this referendum is all about integrity and fairness. What they’re not mentioning is that back in November 2020, by a two-thirds majority, state voters approved a proposed constitutional amendment to create a bipartisan, 16-member Redistricting Commission. The commission would be set up to prevent legislative sleight of hand in the post-Census redistricting process. Membership would consist of eight private citizens and eight lawmakers. But when the commission soon became deadlocked (perhaps the commission could have had 17 members!), the Virginia Supreme Court intervened and appointed various individuals to redraw the election map. The subsequent map, which gave Democrats their present 6-5 edge in the U.S. House of Representatives, is the result of a court order. Either way, fairness is already the law.
Democrats in Virginia, disingenuously, are invoking the language of public integrity as a means of gaining permanent control over Congress, where Republicans still hold a slim majority. Our Founders, particularly (Virginian) James Madison, understood the dangers inherent in extreme factional imbalances in congressional representation. That’s why Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution delegates the task of establishing election rules to the states. Yet advocates of the April 21 referendum, especially large donors and bundlers, don’t seem troubled. The common denominator is a bundling operation, Virginians for Fair Elections. As of this writing (April 10), notes the nonpartisan campaign finance tracking group, the Virginia Public Access Project (VPAP), over $53 million in redistricting campaign funds have been routed through Virginians for Fair Elections. Over 95 percent of this sum has come from a handful of sources. The effectiveness of these donations can be gauged by widely-aired TV ads like this one featuring former President Obama.
Who are these mega-donors? For starters, as mentioned earlier, the Soros-affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit, the Fund for Policy Reform, Inc., sent a $5 million check. Much larger is the $32.8 million sent by a Democratic Party congressional group, House Majority Forward, a sum representing six separate contributions. The Fairness Project, a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(4) dark-money nonprofit that promotes progressive state ballot initiatives nationwide, kicked in a combined $11,022,950 via five donations over the period February 10-March 31. American Opportunity Action, a political action committee affiliated with the Michael Bloomberg-bankrolled lobbying group, American Opportunity, donated $1 million. The Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, in two separate contributions, delivered $1.5 million. There were also six-figure donors, including the Democratic Party of Virginia ($710,825), the Service Employees International Union ($500,000), and the League of Conservation Voters ($300,000).
The main bundler for the “No” side is a group known as Virginians for Fair Maps. Through April 7, according to the Virginia State Board of Elections, this entity spent $16.5 million, a sum representing four separate donations. Thus, Virginians for Fair Maps collects and sends donations. The main source of its funding is a Williamsburg, Va.-based PAC, Justice for Democracy. This organization is not listed in Virginia election board spending figures, but has been verified by Norfolk, Va.’s ABC television network affiliate, WVEC. Chaired by former Republican Virginia Delegate A.C. Cordoza (Tidewater area), the PAC is heavily supported by a Massachusetts-based donor-advised nonprofit, Per Aspera Policy, Inc., which in turn is heavily supported by multibillionaire tech industry investor Peter Thiel. The Silicon Valley-based Thiel made two cash contributions to Per Aspera, on March 26 and April 2, totaling $5 million.
In the big picture, supporters are far outspending opponents. Even without help from the Soros network, this would be the case. There should be no mystery here. This referendum is a uniting force for the Left across the country, a product of clever manipulation of alarm over President Trump’s alleged threat to democracy. Alexis Magnan-Callaway, spokesperson for The Fairness Project, offered a typically canned opinion. “No one wanted to take this action, but in a democracy, we can’t let entire states rig their election just to bend to the will of one person,” she told Fox News Digital. “We have to respond. This amendment is a temporary, one-time exception that gives Virginia voters a voice and meets the need of the current moment, while ensuring Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process will resume after the 2030 Census.”
Don’t believe any of this. This referendum is a power grab, the noble-sounding rhetoric notwithstanding. There is nothing “bipartisan” about it. And the claim that redistricting would be temporary until the 2030 Census results are released is a ruse. People by nature don’t voluntarily give up what they have worked hard to win. If the proposed House of Representatives map prevails at the polls and produces a 10-to-1 Democratic majority, party leaders will use every tactic, constitutional or not, to keep that lead. They might ignore Supreme Court rulings against anti-white gerrymandering in Reno v. Shaw and Shelby County v. Holder. Or more likely, they might hold another referendum to extend the deadline.
The latter scenario actually happened in California. It was related to a separate issue, but it has implications for the state’s “temporary” Proposition 50, which for now has neutered the nonpartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Commission, it should be noted, also was created by a referendum in 2008, and then affirmed and expanded by a second referendum in 2010. Each measure passed by a wide margin, but that hasn’t seemed to matter to Newsom and company.
That “separate issue” was California’s Proposition 30, or Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Voters in 2012 approved the temporary emergency initiative to raise the state sales tax by 0.25 cents per $100 on everyone and raise marginal income tax rates on high-income households. The sales tax section of the measure was allowed to expire at the end of 2016. But due to political pressure, especially from the California Teachers Association, the income tax section, scheduled to expire at the end of 2018, was extended in 2016 by a voter referendum, and with open support by Gavin Newsom, at the time lieutenant governor under Gov. Jerry Brown. The deadline was extended to December 31, 2030. With expiration now looming, tax-hike supporters are discussing the possibility of another “temporary” hike.
Don’t think this can’t happen in Virginia. Governor Spanberger, an ex-CIA spook, is well-acquainted with the art of deception. She used her skills to good effect in her gubernatorial campaign last year. And she has every incentive to use them again to retain any and all new Democratic congressional seats. With a 10-1 Democrat majority, supportive interest groups would be ideally positioned to pressure state lawmakers into extending the map’s temporary life or, even better, making it officially permanent.
Any time a state or congressional election attracts huge sums of out-of-state money, it’s a guarantee the whole country is taking notice. That is the reality in Virginia. This ballot proposal, at bottom, is a referendum on whether President Trump should be allowed to continue as president. As he is scheduled to depart from office on January 20, 2029, those who want him gone are not about to wait beyond that date. Amplifying their sense of urgency is that three other Virginia constitutional amendment proposals are on the November 3 ballot. Respectively, they deal with felon voting eligibility, homosexual marriage, and reproductive rights. Emotions run high on these issues, too. So does cash.
Apropos of our favorite subject, the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundations has a lot at stake. In a democracy, the majority rules. For the Left, there are few paths to long-term majority rule more enticing than redrawn congressional district boundary lines that add Democrats to Congress. Florida, with a population of over 23 million, also is considering a redistricting plan. Supported by GOP Governor Ron DeSantis, the result could be three to five additional Republican seats in the House. The Soros network can be counted on to spread its wealth to oppose this proposal. For now, there is Virginia.
Carl F. Horowitz is a senior fellow at NLPC.
