1 Trending: Dobbs Lawyer Was Pressured To Avoid Taking On Roe. He Chose Courage Instead

2 Trending: With Louisiana Homeless Bill, Democrats Once Again Smear Sensible Policy As ‘Jim Crow’

3 Trending: Feds Should Stop Funding The Massachusetts Schools Welcoming Boys To Girls’ Bathrooms

4 Trending: Evidence Young People Are Turning To Christianity Isn’t Anecdotal — It’s Real

To Virginia Supreme Court, Democrats’ Lawyer Admits Gerrymandering Vote Is Irrelevant

‘The attorney general’s own lawyer completely undercut the public stance of the current attorney general.’

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

The lawyer defending the Democrats’ gerrymandering effort in Virginia admitted to the state Supreme Court on Monday that the vote count has no bearing on the constitutional problems with the referendum. The admission undercuts one of the primary arguments from Attorney General Jay Jones, D-Va., whose office is defending the gerrymander, that the court cannot overturn the results of an election.

During oral argument before the Virginia Supreme Court, attorney Matthew A. Seligman, arguing on behalf of the Democrats controlling Virginia and in favor of gerrymandering, was forced to admit that the final vote count passing gerrymandering does not matter, after questioning from Justice Wesley Russell. Seligman, who is a member of a large group of attorneys Jones’ office hired as outside legal counsel, attempted to make the argument that the plaintiffs opposed to the gerrymander are now attempting to “overturn the results of that democratic process [the vote].”

“I don’t understand that as a legal argument,” Russell interjected, “given that you asked us to invoke our ironically-enough-named Scott decision from over 100 years ago that specifically says you don’t deal with any potential procedural irregularities before the people have voted. So, saying that the people have voted yes after having said you don’t even look as to whether there’s a procedural irregularity … doesn’t add anything to the equation, does it?”

Seligman responded “no,” adding that the court should not accept the plaintiffs’ arguments on the merits. Russell once again interjected, “But the fact that there’s a ‘yes’ vote doesn’t tell us anything about those merits.”

“Uh, no, it does not,” Seligman........

© The Federalist