Democrats Lose Their Composure As They Lose a Redistricting Fight They Initiated

This is nothing new regarding the practice of redrawing election maps; things have just gotten louder of late. It has been a long-running, mirthless joke seen in the press. When Democrats redraw their districts, it is seen as proper “redistricting,” just, and usually described as cagey politics. Republicans, meanwhile, always “gerrymander” districts and do so to rig elections, and almost always this is done in a racist fashion. The arguments are not different today; it is just that the volume has been increasing with each instance.

The one distinction that is seen in these latest desperate voting broadsides is the courts getting involved, and what has the Democrats back on their heels are the rare legal losses. One involved the map contortions performed in Louisiana, and the Supreme Court ruled against these moves because they drew serpentine borders created not by geography or representation, but targeting skin color. Predictably, reactions to SCOTUS saying you cannot create districts based on race were declaring the ruling to be “racist.” Color me bemused.

Then came the stunner in Virginia, and the comedy just flowed from therein. Newly minted Governor Abigail Spanberger has become the shining beacon of Democrat sophistry, campaigning as a moderate but displaying every left-wing tendency immediately after being sworn in. Her tax policies, enforced from the start, were just the first move in defiance of her middle-of-the-road posturing. Abigail also declared she had zero interest in redistricting while on the campaign trail. That pledge lasted about as long as an unlocked Sudafed shelf inside a Walgreens just outside of a Florida trailer park.

We had to wait for this shift in Spanberger’s opinion until…her inaugural. That’s when local entrenched politician Louise Lucas — she of the recent DOJ probe and raids — achieved infamy with her shriek of “10 F***ing One!,” monetizing that gerrymander phrase in the lead-up to a referendum vote. It took barely three months for Abby to be sworn in before pushing this vote on the Virginia gentry.

READ MORE: Breaking: FBI Raids Office of Virginia Democrat Behind 'Ten F---in' One' Gerrymander Map 

She even displayed the audacity of the Dems by speaking as if people cannot show her blatant hypocrisy. The woman who already defied numerous campaign positions within a fiscal quarter had the stones to say that opponents to her redistricting effort were “trying to trick people.” She even lied when she told the gaggle on “Morning Joe” how the opposition spent millions on the ad campaigns, when the pro-gerrymander effort spent triple that amount in the same period. For those living in the Commonwealth, that is a Three F-ing One ratio. 

The press has dutifully reframed facts on this voting district embroglio, casting the GOP as the ever-nefarious force, and the Democrats as straining mightily for fairness. Of course, we need to ignore the prior map revisions seen from the Democrats in areas like New England, where Republican districts are more rare to find than an empty table at a Dunks on a Monday morning.

Dear Brian:
Keep crying… https://t.co/Oa4DzqEYks pic.twitter.com/wSlry8Eras

— Brad Slager: CNN+ Lifetime Subscriber (@MartiniShark) May 11, 2026

Some more comedy was found on that funding front from the ABC eggheads on Sunday. They bemoaned the fact that Trump allegedly overspent money on the Indiana primary races that saw some half a dozen GOP incumbents voted out after that state failed to redistrict its election map. In doing so, they ignore core facts, like this is a normal expenditure for parties geared towards political seats, and that Hakeem Jefferies was shown to have dropped tens of millions in that Virginia advertising campaign, not for elected offices but to sway the voting precincts. That Jeffries is a representative from the state of New York and dropped that tidy sum elsewhere is something else the press needed to elide in their coverage of outrage.

Hakeem Jeffries' 501(c)4 spent nearly $40 million on the blatantly illegal Virginia gerrymander their state Supreme Court has now struck down.

Is this what the "maximum warfare" we've been hearing about looks like? pic.twitter.com/sX9ttVzhZb

— Brandon Gill (@realBrandonGill) May 8, 2026

The Virginia state Supreme Court ruled, after the vote, that the effort to redistrict was unconstitutional, and the cranial mushroom clouds from Democrats and the media could be seen throughout D.C. What was even adding more to the audible laughter were the complaints from select Democrat voices who raged that the SCOVA could have ruled this way before the election, and spared the expenses incurred by funding a neutered effort.

ALSO SEE: The Virginia Supreme Court Just Changed the Midterm Math

Democrats Plot Coup Against Virginia Supreme Court in Redistricting Fight

Small problem. Well…make that a big, glaring problem: The same Democrats had lobbied that Court to refrain from deciding until AFTER the election. That is correct — the people complaining about the after-the-fact ruling were the same ones who petitioned the court to hold back on its opinion.

Marc is just salty because the court stepped back, by his own request. https://t.co/wUSNbbfByf pic.twitter.com/w1350RdWbU

— Brad Slager: CNN+ Lifetime Subscriber (@MartiniShark) May 10, 2026

What we are enduring today is the peals of outrage from the party that absolutely loves to have its agenda force-fed on the public through the court system. They are so accustomed to leadership by tort fiat that anytime they get rapped on the knuckles by a judge’s gavel, they are unable to deal with the reality. 

Their dismay is also resulting from Republicans over the past couple of years finally installing some rebar in their spines and showing a willingness to play by the Democrat Party's rules. The redistricting battles have been needed for decades, but for once, we see GOP legislatures willing to get up off the bench and play the same game that was put in place so long ago. 

The mewling heard from the Democrats is a result of facing the very policies on which they have long subsisted, and the courts they have always relied upon no longer rubber-stamping their whims. It leaves us today with the paradox of having to endure their emotional histrionics while at the same time developing a measure of enjoyment from the drama.