by Paul Goldman

Thank you sir: Mr. Emilio Jaksetic’s attempt to refute my article actually demonstrates the GOP is in a panic over my redistricting strategy. The GOP realizes I have indeed come up with a way to outfox Judge Thomas and his colleagues. Their rationale in the Texas case told Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger, House Speaker Don Scott, D-Portsmouth, and Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, their proposed plan is DOA. Ironically, the GOP right now will get crushed nationally in 2026 mid-terms no matter how the Supremes try to help them. 

The lengthy response to my article “Outfoxing Judge Thomas: An Alternative Redistricting Strategy for VA Democrats” is well-written. I appreciate the seriousness of Mr. Jaksetic’s piece. 

He says, “I will discuss Mr. Goldman’s proposed strategy… and explain why it is legally flawed.” It is always flattering to have someone write a column in response to your articles. In college, I used to write a political/current events column entitled “Golddust.” This inspired a rival column entitled “Goldrust”, likewise billed as a critique of sorts. It proved quite the rivalry. And also ultimately unpersuasive. 

This latest Goldrust version attacks my strategy on three fronts.

(1) Virginia Constitution, Article II, Section 6. 

In the part of piece entitled Virginia Constitution, Article II, Section 6, the critique says Section 6-A is supreme. But offers no case law. 

My article merely says the new redistricting amendments added to the VA Constitution have never been interpreted. As I read them, they can be read as allowing mid-decade adjustments to correct any unfairness discussed in Section 6 for the reasons explained in my article. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court said the 14th amendment allowed segregation in Virginia’s. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme said the 14th amendment banned segregation in Virginia. The 14th amendment had not changed. During FDR’s first term, the High Court said the Constitution prohibited key parts of his New Deal. A few years later, the Justice’s came to the opposite conclusion.

The critique merely offers an opinion poorly disguised as a legal fact by claiming  the wording in 6-A automatically trumps the wording in 6. He’s wrong to believe there’s any such automatic analysis in this matter. There are no cases Interpreting these two constitutional sections. 

2) General Assembly’s Legislative Power.

“(Goldman’s) proposed strategy invokes the General Assembly’s broad legislative power and contends…determination of (the) unfairness (discussed in Section 6…seems inherently the power of the state legislative branch.” The “refutation” says this “claim may have political and rhetorical appeal for some people, but it lacks legal support.”

The author shows his true political and legal bias by saying “some people.” Meaning Democrats, as the author is a Republican opposed any Redistricting here in Virginia (but likely no Texas, etc). Of course, the “some people” happen to be a landslide majority in Virginia. Republicans think Donald Trump’s 49% allows them to rewrite the federal constitution. Surely the Democrats 57%at least allows them a clean sleet to examine two constitutional amendments that have never been examined before. Of course the constitution should change based on the political. My analysis is based on why they accepted constitutional reasoning. Harmonizing seemingly inconsistent parts of the constitution started in earnest under Chief Justice John Marshall. However, in my view, there isn’t any inconsistency because mid-decade redistricting was not fully addressed by the two constitutional provisions in question

The critique cites FFW Enterprises v. Fairfax County, 701 S.E.2d 795, 800 (VA Supreme Court 2010) and Terry v. Mazur, 362 S.E.2d 904, 908 (VA Supreme Court 1987) for the proposition the “General Assembly has no authority to act in contravention of the Virginia Constitution.”

My response: when did I ever say otherwise! Citing these cases on different parts of the Virginia Constitution only found Virginia Supreme Court made these general statements of principle. Of course they did! His critique agrees it would be smart for the General Assembly to follow my strategy to hold hearings before making a declaration that the current Congressional Districts are “unfair.’ But he says “a bill to establish new Congressional Districts would be an empty political gesture because passage of such a bill would not cure the General Assembly’s lack of authority to unilaterally engage in electoral redistricting.”

I apologize for saying it again, but I must: All he is doing here amounts claiming his opinion is law by citing general principles of law. Unfortunately, that’s not how caselaw works. 

 (3) Claim that Virginia Courts would support the proposed strategy. 

“The proposed strategy contends that the Virginia courts would uphold the General Assembly’s position if it made a legislative declaration that existing electoral districts are “unfair” then used that declaration as a basis to enact legislation to change the existing Congressional Districts. That contention is legally untenable.”

One thing oughta be clear by now: all he has is the ability to not get bored by writing the same thing time and time again. No matter how many times you say the same thing a different still amounts to the same thing: his opinion on what Judges may do in a case of first impression.

He fails to refute the basic premise of my article. Which is simply this: Since the United States Supreme Court has told Spanberger, Scott and Surovell  their approach is a sure loser, anyone seriously interested in stopping the Trumpian attempt to steal the 2026 election would hopefully be open to a strategy that at least isn’t DOA when it gets to the Supreme Court. 

Notice the critique doesn’t dispute this. It merely says the Virginia Supreme Court would not agree with me. 

Accordingly, he actually agrees with me because he admits the key legal question will be decided by the Virginia Supreme Court, not the United States Supreme Court.

Which was the whole legal and political premise of my article! 

Justice Thomas says Virginia got no shot if his crew gets to decide this legal question.

Which is precisely why the GOP is panicking by my showing how to outfox Thomas on this key issue.

Thanks for the validation.