When asked during her campaign last year whether she had any intention of supporting redistricting if elected governor of Virginia, Spanberger replied: “Short answer is no.” The long answer was also no. The answer was always no. Redistricting was one of the very few issues on which Spanberger, who mostly spewed vague nonthreatening nonpartisan platitudes during her gubernatorial race, took an explicit position.
In the past, Spanberger had preached that gerrymandering was “detrimental to our democracy” and that opposing gerrymandering “should be a bipartisan priority.” That kind of promise sounds sturdy right up until it isn’t. Misryoum newsroom reported that it only took a few days after her inauguration for Spanberger to go back on her word and sign legislation setting up the special referendum on perhaps the most egregious gerrymandering efforts in American history.
Back in 2020, Virginia voted for a constitutional amendment that set up a bipartisan commission to draw new districts explicitly to limit partisan bias in the process. When the commission couldn’t come to an agreement, Virginia’s Supreme Court appointed a bipartisan duo that produced a map that gave Democrats six House seats and Republicans five, which is a reasonable approximation of the electorate in the state. Virginia isn’t the first state to gerrymander its district map—so yes, people have seen this before. Still, the campaign messaging around this vote has been hard to stomach.
Misryoum editorial team stated that even a hard-boiled cynic who’s been exposed to partisan ads for decades might be taken aback by the crass dishonesty of the Left’s “yes” campaign. Most of the ads, filled with ominous clips of President Donald Trump and people from minority groups warning that their vote is being stolen, refer to the redistricting as a “temporary measure” meant to “protect fair elections.” Even the text of the referendum claims it will “restore fairness.” And there’s the looping question, the one you keep hearing while you’re flipping channels—what does “fairness” actually mean here?
Former President Barack Obama is on the television and radio every five minutes arguing that a yes vote “gives you the power to level the playing field in the midterms this fall.” What’s Obama’s conception of “fairness?” Taking a 6-5 split and making it 10-1 in favor of Democrats. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris won the state with 51% of the presidential vote, but now Democrats want 90% of the House votes. There’s certainly nothing innately “temporary” about taking over the entire state and making it impossible for Republicans to compete in House elections. (I remember hearing an ad while the TV hum kept going, that same low buzz in the background—then the scary music hits, and you just… sit there.)
Which is why $40 million has been raised by the “yes” vote, most of it coming from out of state. George Soros alone dropped $5 million. The “no” side has raised $8 million, all told. Whatever happens on April 21, there’s no upside here for Spanberger, who spent a decade cultivating her alleged moderation. Already captured by the hard left in the Virginia legislature, she’s been proven unreliable and dishonest.
Spanberger’s approval rating is already brutal for a governor of only a few months, and that almost surely has a lot to do with her partisan power grab. Misryoum analysis indicates that Only 47% approve of the job she’s doing, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll. To put that number into context, Spanberger is the least popular governor this century. No other governor averaged over 40% unfavorability during their terms. No other governor approached a similarly low approval so early. Her predecessor, Glenn Youngkin’s average approval rating was 54%. Thirty-eight percent polled strongly disapproved of Spanberger, which is far higher than at any point during Youngkin’s tenure. The numbers are unlikely to improve if the redistricting passes. If it fails, voters will have noticed that the first thing that the governor did was bet big on a national political issue rather than focusing on Virginia, and then still lost—though of course, political calculations rarely end cleanly, do they.