by Paul Goldman

If the current polls showing a close contest are correct, history says the redistricting referendum will be defeated. As a general rule, support for a controversial referendum diminishes as election day approaches. This is due to the unique dynamics of issue referendum politics: if the polls showing the pro-side lead barely higher than the statistical margin of error are accurate, the historical data says the late deciding voters will sink the referendum on Election Day. 

As I wrote last year, such a devastating loss would leave Spanberger a hobbled loser at home at the start of her term and a knee-capped sinking star in national Democratic politics. Around the country, fellow Democrats would be scratching their heads asking: how could she win a 57% victory a few months ago, but fail in her effort to help the party nationally combat Trumpism? Their likely answer: She won last year as a lucky recipient of the anti-Trump vote not due to any pro Spanberger constituency. A fatal political analysis.

My view: Whether you agree with her or not on the constitutional amendment, it serves no useful purpose to turn the Democratic Governor of Virginia into a lame duck nationally in the fight against Trumpism. The President has made clear he’s trying to remake our republic in his own image by whatever electoral means possible. He’s playing political hardball to achieve it

In the seminal redistricting case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Justices said redistricting is the most political act done by any state legislature. In 1991, Governor L. Douglas  Wilder and I agreed on the most radical redistricting plan in the state’s history. As the Democratic Party Chair, he ordered me to help him bring Virginia into the 20th century. The White party leadership, especially the Old Guard in the State Senate, were furious. I had purchased the most advanced redistricting software. We drafted five new black majority districts, compared to the only two then existing. Based on the historic racial block voting, this new redistricting plan meant we would likely lose up to six old-guard White Democrat incumbents. Needless to say, these senators demanded my head. Some of their loyalists hold big positions in the new Administration. 

They thought the state Democratic Party chair should put partisanship above civil rights. Admittedly, no other state chair before or since has taken this kind of principled stand. For example, we drafted the district initially won by rookie Louise Lucas. The White Democratic leadership tried to impeach me for all I had done to bring Virginia into the 20th century in terms of electoral representation. They, of course, along with the press, will try to tell you it was something different. 

But when you’re the only White person in the state who took on the White Democratic leadership years before to steer Wilder’s historic campaigns, their animosity towards me was inevitable. I believed the short-term price of losing some Democratic legislative seats in order to give women and minorities a long overdue chance to achieve electoral equality is totally consistent with the values of the party. Furthermore, it was in the best interest of my state. 

Given the post-Wilder progress in terms of representational equality, I think the vision of the governor and his state party chair has stood the test of time. Our opposition not so much. 

So yes, politics is hardball and you sometimes need to make momentous decisions which will antagonize some very powerful people. It will likely make you unpopular in certain political circles. 

President Donald Trump is playing hardball in his effort to manipulate the outcome of the 2026 congressional elections. He’s daring Democrats to fight back.

Democrats need to fight back. The choice offered by the redistricting referendum is not perfect. Moreover, as I wrote last year, I don’t believe the United States Supreme Court in June — the likely time frame for their decision on the constitutionality of the new districts — will allow the imposition of the congressional map supported by Governor Spanberger. I base this conclusion on their decision in other cases involving substantial changes to district boundaries intended to be implemented in the middle of an ongoing election.

But the issue on April 21 is not what the United States Supreme Court or the Virginia Supreme Court might rule at a later date.

To me, the issue boils down to this: Is it in the interest of the voters who elected Governor Spanberger to give her a devastating political defeat at the beginning of her term?

Let’s have an honest discussion. Any Democrat who ran last year as the party nominee would’ve easily been elected. I predicted that many months ago in this columnist space using historical election statistics. Indeed, I wrote a year ago the Democrats were going to sweep based on the statewide election results when Donald Trump previously sat in the White House.

Accordingly, the first true test of Spanberger‘s political strength here in Virginia will be the upcoming April 21 referendum.

Bottom line: Democrats simply can’t afford to have Spanberger lose. Former president John F. Kennedy famously said sometimes party loyalty asked too much. The issue then was his refusal to support a known segregationist for a federal judgeship in Mississippi. He rightly refused. 

But we face no such moral dilemma here. It serves no useful purpose for Democrats to let Spanberger twist in the wind in hopes the historical statistics for referendum elections doesn’t come true on April 21.

She needs to win. I understand many Democrats oppose super partisan redistricting. It is a highly controversial constitutional issue for a constitutional lawyer like myself. But I’m going to put aside these legitimate philosophical questions and vote to support Spanberger. In my view, so should other Democrats.

In that regard, she’s made the right choice. For in the end, you either vote Yes on April 21: or you vote No, which in effect is a vote to support Donald Trump. This is the hardball political reality where the rubber meets the road. It’s not the choice you or I might want in an ideal world. But it’s the choice Democrats are being given in the current one defined by the MAGA movement. 

The principles of the democracy we cherish are not benefited by sending her to defeat.

Virginia Democrats can’t afford to lose the vote on April 21. That’s the hard ball reality. 

Paul Goldman is former Chair of the VA Democratic Party, a former candidate for mayor of the City of Richmond, and author of “Remaking Virginia Politics.”