Yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments pertaining to cases previously brought prior to the April 21st referendum election throughout the commonwealth.
Initially, the justices had lifted the temporary restraining order issued by Tazewell County judge Jack Hurley, Jr., without considering the merits of the case.The Gateway Pundit reported on the issuesthat were facing the Va. Supreme Court ahead of the referendum vote.
However, the justices determined that they could only rule on the merits of the case if the election succeeded in passing the amendment, allowing the redrawing of districts to favor a new map giving Democrats a 10-to-1 congressional majority in an essentially evenly divided state. The previous map was 6 to 5 in favor of Democrats.
Virginia requires an amendment to be proposed and agreed upon by a majority of the General Assembly. Then, in the “first regular session held after the next general election,” members of the General Assembly must agree upon the amendment a second time in the new General Assembly. Several legal experts have previously suggested that the ruling should favor the nullification of the election on the grounds that numerous procedural requirements were not followed in the process to propose and pass the amendment.
Yesterday, the seven justices heard oral arguments, days after the election.
During the oral arguments, a Justice asked, “Do you agree that the word ‘next’ in modifying ‘next general election for the House of Delegates,’ means that if the election has started, that’s not the one, you have to go to the next one? Your disagreement with the other side is when the election starts?”
Appellant’s counsel responded that he disagreed with the definition of the word ‘election’ used by challengers on “the other side.” He noted that the Constitution, in five separate provisions, defines the election as “a single day” that “takes place in November, not over a three month period that begins in September.”
“So your position requires us to interpret “election” in such a manner that literally every single vote that is cast for whatever the office is is cast before the election even begins?” the Justice asked.
“Yes, your Honor,” he replied, explaining that it’s consistent with the interpretation of the federal government and “sister states.”
The Justice then noted that constitutional provisions, if not specifically defined, are meant to be interpreted the way the people who ratified them would have.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
