4 Takeaways from the Virginia redistricting referendum

Democrats prevailed on Tuesday in their effort to gerrymander Virginia, where voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing a temporary map change. The result capped off a six-month whirlwind: Virginia was always considered an unlikely entrant into the gerrymandering war, first sparked by the Trump White House and Texas Republicans last summer, and the vote itself was only made possible by a bank shot combination of legislative technicality and sheer bravado.

For national Democrats, control of the U.S. House is now closer than ever. For Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a central plank of her legacy has now been written — whether she likes it or not. I’m writing under the weather, battling a bit of a flu for the past few days, but I wanted to run through some of the big takeaways from the amendment’s passage.

1. The revolt of the federal worker.
The referendum ended up passing by 3% statewide, around half the margin by which Kamala Harris won Virginia in 2024. Predictably, the “Yes” side ran behind Harris’s margins in almost the entire state; in some counties in southwest Virginia, in fact, “No” outperformed Donald Trump’s 2024 result by double digits. The one problem for opponents of the referendum: that trend did not extend to vote-rich northern Virginia. There, “Yes” outran Harris — in Arlington by 1%, in Fairfax by 5%, in Loudon by 6%, and in Prince William by 8%. 

The reason for the over-performance was not hard to divine. The wealthiest, most populated, most liberal part of the commonwealth, long insulated from economic downturns by dint of federal spending, was severely impacted by the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal bureaucracy last year. The tail of those cuts was already apparent in November, when those counties provided Spanberger with enormous vote margins. It showed up again on Tuesday, and almost certainly provided the margin to sink Republicans’ hopes.

2. The gerrymandering war is nearly over — and Democrats are slightly ahead. With the passage of the Virginia map, Democrats have now improbably pulled into a slight lead in the Great Gerrymandering War. Most outlets are using maps like this, showing general estimations of the likely number of seats flipped in each state.  

VoteBeat’s Nathaniel Rakich has a more complicated breakdown, taking into account the nuances and uncertainty of some of the new districts. In his telling, Democrats are, right now, at a 3.6-seat gain — technically just enough to win the House majority (the House is currently split 218-215).

The last remaining chess piece is Florida, where Republicans seem likely to pursue at least some form of retaliatory gerrymandering. One big variable: the state’s map is already very gerrymandered to begin with, so there’s a real risk that too aggressive a push, i.e., one intended to fully erase Democrats’ Virginia gains, could end up creating districts vulnerable to a blue wave. 

3. Spanberger’s bloodied — but better off
In the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s vote, much was made of Spanberger’s role, or lack thereof, in the referendum. Politico reported that Democrats in the state believed she was doing “the bare minimum” to support the amendment. The New York Times reported that the “Yes” campaign stopped featuring her in its ads. Punchbowl unfavorably compared her role in the campaign to Gavin Newsom’s strategy in California. Louise Lucas, the top Democrat in the Virginia Senate, publicly dinged her.

The governor’s ambivalence around redistricting was always a bit of an open secret in Virginia. At the same time, the intense national attention on her early governorship had already damaged her approval rating and weakened her standing among state Democrats, many of whom were prepared to blame her if the amendment went down. In the end, it didn’t matter. 

Spanberger can claim little credit for the victory — that largely lies with Democratic donors, who seeded the “Yes” campaign with enough money to outspend the “No” side by tens of millions of dollars. But, whether she wanted to enter this battle or not, she did avoid the worst-case scenario: a hit to her reputation with nothing to show for it. 

4. The 2028 question: Disruption or anti-corruption?
In my experience, nothing animates Democratic consultants or rank-and-file members alike more than the issue of gerrymandering.

For many, the issue encapsulates all their frustrations with the modern political system: While Republicans pursued ruthless gerrymanders, do-gooder Democrats tied their hands behind their backs, handing the redistricting process to independent commissions in blue states like Colorado, Virginia, and California. Liberal efforts to create a level playing field nationwide were then repeatedly thwarted by the right. In 2019, the Supreme Court, ruling 5-4 along ideological lines, found partisan gerrymandering outside the realm of federal courts. Congressional Democrats found zero dance partners in their subsequent efforts to ban the practice legislatively — not a single Republican voted for the effort in either 2019 or 2021. 

To be sure, some notable nuance exists here. Democrats by no means have clean hands on gerrymandering; Maryland and Illinois have been particularly egregious offenders in recent decades. Some valid critiques exist of the way some states’ independent commissions function. And congressional Democrats’ proposed gerrymandering bans were tucked in bigger bills containing more contentious provisions. Still, much of the indignation on the left is, by any reasonable metric, quite fair. Now, what’s most interesting is where that indignation goes.

If there’s one thing that’s perturbed me about Democrats’ gerrymandering counter-attack, it’s the glee some of the party’s elected officials have seemed to express about the opportunity. In many cases, redistricting reform has been the product of ordinary citizens, some boasting true Mr. Smith bona fides, who decided to fight against disenfranchisement and polarization. Millions of dollars, countless hours of work, and entire careers have been dedicated to preventing the race to the bottom the country is now in. Democrats’ response should be viewed as an unfortunate, grudging, necessary evil — not an opportunity to be pounced on. 

Whether the party will come to think of it that way is an open question. Corruption is becoming an increasingly salient issue in the 2026 elections and is increasingly becoming a talking point in the stump speeches of figures like Josh Shapiro and Jon Ossoff. It’s one of several ways this year may end up echoing 2006. But a credible anti-establishment anti-corruption message in 2008 requires at least some implication of both parties. At a time when Democratic voters are clearly clamoring for some sense of fight from their leaders, the two schools of thought could be on a collision course.

Got feedback on today’s newsletter? Email me [email protected]