What Happens if the Redistricting Amendment Passes or Fails?

The Transition Team engages in a thought experiment to examine the Constitutional Amendment on Redistricting and what happens if the amendment passes and if it fails. Our guests include David Ramadan (supports), a former Republican Delegate with the Schar School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and Trevor Southerland (opposes) of Fair Districts VA who opposes the Amendment.

Michael Pope
Welcome to Transition Virginia, the podcast that examines the transition of power from Republican to Democrat. My name is Michael Pope.

Thomas Bowman
And I'm Thomas Bowman. Today on the podcast amendment one, the constitutional amendment on the ballot, this fall, that creates a new redistricting commission. This is not going to be the same rehashed arguments you've already heard over and over again, we're gonna do something different with this.

Michael Pope
Instead of debating the pros and the cons of the amendment, and whether you should vote for it or against it, we're going to engage in a thought experiment, what will happen if the amendment passes? How will it work? Who will be appointed to the commission? Will it actually end up in the Supreme Court?

Thomas Bowman
We're also going to engage in another thought experiment. What happens if the amendment fails? Will the process take place in the same smoke filled back rooms of the past, or will some kind of new process emerge that's not the same old familiar, screw the opposition strategy, that happens after every census?

Michael Pope
To help us walk through these scenarios, we're joined by a friend of the podcast, who also happens to be a senior advisor to Fair Districts Virginia, Trevor Southerland. Trevor, thanks for returning to Transition Virginia.

Trevor Southerland
Always, always glad to be here with you.

Thomas Bowman
We're also joined by another friend of the podcast, former Republican member of the House of Delegates, who's now at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, David Ramadan. Thanks for coming back.

David Ramadan
Always a pleasure. Happy to be here.

Michael Pope
Okay. So in this thought experiment, the amendment passes. And we either find this out on Election Day or Election Week, or whenever the heck we're going to find out the results of this election. And the amendment has passed. David Ramadan, who's popping champagne?

David Ramadan
Oh, plenty, mostly Democrats that have stuck to their guns and supported the amendment in the first time it passed in 2019, and then again in 2020, despite the pressure by many to flip on the issue, since Democrats are in majority. Those include U.S. Senator Tim Kaine. Those include Donald Beyer, Congressman, those include many who co authored and voted for this, such as Virginia senators that have been Barbara Favola, Janet Howell, Mamie Locke, and Louise Lucas, the most senior Democrat, African American woman in the Senate. Also organizations such as AARP, the ACLU, Fair Vote, Common Cause, League of Women Voters, all of whom that had lobbied and worked hard to get a fair and balanced way of redistricting Virginia without gerrymandering, and this is as good as it gets.

Michael Pope
Okay, so David Ramadan has told us who's popping the champagne corks, Trevor Southerland who's down in the dumps?

Trevor Southerland
Well, I think people who are going to be down in the dumps are going to be people who were hoping for an end to gerrymandering because they're going to realize that Amendment One doesn't do that. Amendment One still allows for racial gerrymandering, it still allows for incumbent gerrymandering, it doesn't actually end those things. And this is where you get into, like, these specific terms that you hear people use, like prison gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering. And you know, the voting public doesn't always understand that gerrymandering is not just one thing. There's several different types of gerrymandering. The only type of gerrymandering that this amendment possibly ends, is partisan gerrymandering, and Thomas, in the introduction, you you mentioned this, screw the opposition idea. And that's something that a lot of people hang on to. And when they think of 2011, they think that's what happened, but it's actually not. The 2011 maps in Virginia, were not partisan gerrymanders, for the congressional map and for the House of Delegate map, it was a racial gerrymandering, and for the Senate map, it was an incumbent gerrymander. Both of those things are still allowed under Amendment One. And I would add to the list of people popping champagne corks, should Amendment One pass, it's going to be people who are constitutional lawyers, because this amendment has so many problems with it, that it is going to take so long for the courts to even figure out who's going to be appointed to this commission, because it is so poorly written, and it went through such a rushed process in 2019, that it just needs to go in the trash bin.

Michael Pope
You know, I'm so glad you brought up the idea of who's going to be appointed to this because that's exactly what I wanted to do with this thought experiment. So the first deadline, actually, has to do with the judges. So the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court submits a list of retired judges to the General Assembly leaders. And then the Republican leaders, and the Democratic leaders, get to pick the judges that they like, and the judges are whittled down to four judges. And then the four judges pick a fifth judge. And so it's sort of all that happens in the days following the success of this amendment at the polls. So then the next process here is the General Assembly members are picked. Which members of the General Assembly, will end up being the eight members? So I was speaking to someone who's involved in this process, who had some predictions, I want to throw them out to the panel and see if you agree with this. So we've got four House members and four Senate members, right, to two Democrats each, two Republicans each. So on the House side, we've got Marcus Simon and Marcia Price. On the Senate side, we've got Mamie Locke and George Barker. For the Republicans, on the House side, we've got Todd Gilbert and Rob Bell. For Senate Republicans we've got Jill Vogel and John Cosgrove. What do you think of that prediction? And who do you think is going to end up as the elected officials on this commission?

David Ramadan
Those are pretty good predictions. And I would be happy with any and all of them on that commission. And I can guarantee you that if this passes, Marcus Simon and Marcia Price, and Mamie Locke and George Barker, are never going to agree to racial gerrymandering. When we hear the argument that that Trevor gave earlier, that this allows for racial gerrymandering, that's really an accusation to the people that are in the majority, that they cannot but racial gerrymander afterwards? Come on, guys. We I will trust any member of the House or the Senate, with this amendment passing, to do their constitutional job at the time, to draw districts, or be part of a team of 16 that draws districts, that will not racial gerrymander. And that's why the argument against this fail, because you're basically accusing those that are against it. Now, Marcia Price Mark Simon are two of the most opponents against this amendment, and they will likely be on that committee if and when this amendment passes. So are we saying they're gonna racial gerrymander, because there's not no it's not, that's not going to happen.

Michael Pope
So returning to our hypothetical scenario here. So we've got our eight members, our fantasy league here of fantasy league redistricting commission, and now they've got a deadline, which is January 1, the first of 2021, they are going to have to submit their list of potential citizens quote, unquote, citizens, as some people like to say. So each of the leaders gets to pick 16 people for a total of 64. So we've got 64 citizens that go to the judges and the judges can pick the citizens. Now, I want to really get into a thought experiment here, who is going to be on this list of 64 citizen members, that go to the judges? What kind of people are we talking about here? And the only limitation in the black letter of the amendment, is that they cannot work for the General Assembly, and they cannot work for Congress. That's it. There are no other guardrails. David Ramadan, let me go to you first, what kind of people are we talking about here? What can we expect to see in this list of citizens?

David Ramadan
Two kinds in my mind, organizational leaders or organizational activists, people that have real common knowledge of the subject matter. And individuals that have real knowledge of the subject matter, people that have worked with it. It's very complex to draw maps, it's not easy. So just bringing somebody who is pro or against, or somebody who has no subject matter expertise, will make it much harder for the commission to do their work. So I expect that both leaders will appoint or suggest individuals that have subject matter expertise.

Michael Pope
Can you think of any examples? I'm thinking in fact, the first person that comes to mind is, former Delegate Chris Jones. Now, citizen Chris Jones. Would he be the kind of person that might end up with a resume before the judges?

David Ramadan
Any former delegates or former senators who had served in general in the House or Senate, or in particular that have served in the privileges and elections, and have dealt with maps in elections loss would be a possibility.

Michael Pope
Okay, what about David Ramadan? What about David? Do you expect your name to be raised?

David Ramadan
If named by the Speaker of the House, I will gladly serve upon her request. And notice I said if named by the Speaker of the House, there's got to be absolutely no partisanship in these namings and in these suggestions. It shouldn't be hardcore partisans appointed on either side, it should be people that can cross the aisle and work together. And if I was to be named by Speaker Filler-Corn, I'll...it would be an honor to serve. But that's the type of people that you need, people that have knowledge, either because of their organizational or activist roles and expertise, or because of their previous experience in the House and the Senate.

Michael Pope
Trevor Southerland, what kind of person do you expect to be the citizen members?

Trevor Southerland
The idea that the citizen members are not going to be partisan, I think is absolutely crazy. They are definitely going to be partisans, they are definitely going to be, quite frankly, people like me, who have allegiances, and who have a reason to want maps to go one way or another. So you're going to see a partisan person leading this commission, who's going to have allegiances to politicians.

Michael Pope
Let's go into the room where the five judge panel is meeting. And now this five judge panel is has a stack of resumes, and that stack is 64 resumes high, and they are looking at very partisan people. So they're they're flipping through, "Oh, here's Trevor Southerland's resume, hm do we put him on the commission or not? Here's David Ramadan's resume. Do we put him on the commission or not?" How do you think the judges are going to put this composition together? I think it probably will be pretty clear to the judges, who's an R, and who's a D. David Ramadan, how are the judges going to come up with eight members? Do you think they're going to stack those eight citizen members equally? In other words, are they going to look at the resumes and say, "We're going to put four R's on this citizen commission and four D's? How's that going to work?

David Ramadan
Now, I hope that the names that are sent to them are not partisan. However, if they are, and my hope is that they're not, however, I do concede to Trevor on this, they're likely to be partisan people, like him, that will be sent to the judges. And at that point, I think the judges will take into account, and will make sure that it's a balanced committee.

Michael Pope
I would agree with Trevor's assumption earlier, that this list is probably likely to be very partisan people. So what I think what is going to be before the judges is 32, very partisan Democrats, and 32 very partisan Republicans. That's the stack of resumes, they're probably going to be looking at. Trevor Southerland, walk me inside what you think the judges are going to do? Are they going, are this five judge panel, are they going to pick four R's and four D's? How's that going to work, do you think?

Trevor Southerland
I would think that they would probably pick four R's and four D's to keep the panel completely even. You know, and I think there are going to be two sets of partisan list. I'm sure the judges will try to pick people that they feel like have the knowledge necessary to serve on a commission of this importance. But I think at the end of the day, it's going to be partisan people that are on it. Maybe not quite as bad as me, but certainly partisans.

Okay, I got a question. How long does it normally take for the General Assembly to draw and agree to new maps? And does this new layer in the process, protract that debate and that discussion? Or does this condense these happenings?

David Ramadan
Depends on who's on the commission. Then we'd go back to the to the to the knowledge and expertise in the issue. If the Commission has few individuals that are not familiar with how districting, or what are districts, and how do you comprise them, and, and communities of interests? And then counties versus precincts, versus lines of towns, and so on and so forth, then it will drag because all those individuals going to be doing, are going to be asking questions, delaying the process, or they'll end up sitting it out and just letting two or three people within the commission lead and let that happen. The more knowledgeable the individuals are, the better of a process it will be, and the better result we end up with.

Thomas Bowman
So we're, the takeaway, of course, then is that the people you appoint to this matter,

David Ramadan
Absolutely.

Thomas Bowman
So I guess if it passes, the hope, is that, at least as a citizen of Virginia, that this is not a patronage position. Maybe that's too much to expect? But that's at least the hope, and what it needs to be, for the citizens of Virginia, of course, is neutral. And I think it's possible to get a neutral product. But then I am skeptical that the General Assembly can keep it neutral from there, because once the Commission has released its map, you can have two members object, it kicks it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is redrawing the maps, or sending it back to the General Assembly for further debate. So my concern with this amendment, is that should it pass, it's actually going to make things a lot messier.

David Ramadan
I don't I don't think so Thomas, I think even General Assembly at that point, have no choice but to either accept the maps or deny the maps, they're the maps, right? They're not going to redraw them themselves. They know that if two, if two members decide of the same party, Democrats, the Republicans say, "Oh, these maps don't work, we're just going to object to them." It's not that they're going to draw them at that point, it's going straight to Supreme Court. And Supreme Court is going to draw them. And you know, what, my guess would be? Supreme Court is gonna look at him say, if they're fair, they're gonna vote him right in. And if they're not fair, then they're gonna go ahead and use a fair process to draw those maps. And the courts have done that in the past. Democrats had had sued for congressional districts as early as a couple years ago, it was the the the courts that drew those maps.

Michael Pope
Returning to our hypothetical scenario, here, we've got our 16 member commission, and they come up with a map, and then that map goes to the General Assembly, then they can they voted up or down, they cannot amend it. And then so it's if they reject it, it goes back to the Commission, the commission gets a second bite at this apple, and then they create a second set of maps, it goes back to the General Assembly, they can vote it up or down again. And then if they voted down, then it goes to the Supreme Court. Now, I want to ask a question about that potential. So there's been a lot of talk, this has actually been weaponized, the whole thing about it going to the Supreme Court, as one of the chief arguments against the amendment. But I also have heard a way of thinking the pushing back on that, a little bit, which is, isn't it in the lawmakers best interest to make sure they're in the room where the maps are being drawn. And they don't send it off to the Supreme Court where God knows what those people will come up with. So like, even if you're in the minority, it's in your interest, isn't it, to be in the room where the maps are being drawn to make sure you're in your district, to make sure your mother is in your district, to make sure your chief financial supporter is in your district, to make sure your chief enemy is not in your district, you want to be in the room where that map is drawn. And you don't want to hand it over to the Supreme Court and hope for the best, because you have no clue what those people will draw. So I mean, isn't it in the minorities interest, not to vote against this and send this to the Supreme Court, Trevor Southerland?

Trevor Southerland
Yeah, I mean, it is it is it is in the interest of the minority, it is in the interest of all politicians to be in the room. And that's why you've had people like Cia Price, who have said, "Take it out of our hands, make an independent commission that is separate from the Legislature, that does not involve politicians and get the politicians out of the room."

Michael Pope
Yes, but we're but but we're in the scenario now where the amendment has passed, the commission has sent the maps to the General Assembly, the General Assembly is voting on these maps, the Commission has sent them, isn't it in everybody's interest to approve either map one or map two, and not send this thing to the Supreme Court?

David Ramadan
But mind you Trevor, "We're in the room where it happens. The room where it happens, the room where it happens."

Trevor Southerland
Thank god, he did not go into singing.

Michael Pope
Don't sing too much, or we're gonna have to pay some royalty fees.

Trevor Southerland
I think you know that that is going to be part of the struggle. What is is the process? What do the maps look like? In the House in the past, you've had more of a partisan fight, more of a fight for the majority versus the minority. In the Senate, they've been happy sort of trading it back and forth, and sort of the old school type of politics. So you know, that's the real question. Does a map that is fairly drawn, give the Republicans that chance of ever winning a majority in the House again?

David Ramadan
Are we back to my point where the Democrat Party had said that this will cost the the Democrats the majority in the House? And that is why the opposition? Did I just hear Trevor bring up that point from a different point of view and admitting that that's the crux of the matter?

Trevor Southerland
It's the Democratic Party, sir. It's not the Democrat Party. Just want to make sure we get that right.

David Ramadan
Sure, sure.

Trevor Southerland
Second of all, the the opposition comes from a lot of different places. But Todd Gilbert, and others have said, the only chance the Republicans have of getting the majority back, is passing this amendment. And so you have to ask yourself, "What about this amendment is it the Republicans like so much? Is it that politicians are still involved? Is it that it could go to the Supreme Court?" I don't know. But there's something that they really love about it.

David Ramadan
Something that really the Democratic Party hates about it, right? Hey, I'm admitting I'm admitting to saying that these are political arguments. And I'm saying, let's get the politics out of this, right? So at least give me that. Yes, it's a political argument, but we want to fight it.

Michael Pope
I want to return to spring, springtime 2021. So all the flowers are blooming, it's springtime, you're on the House floor, you're on the Senate floor. They're actually voting, up or down, on map one and map two. And it's in really, it's in everybody's interest to make sure those maps pass. And it's in everybody's interest to make sure they do not send it to the Supreme Court, right? I mean, like, I think that is potentially possible. And this is the argument that you're you're hearing from people that don't like the amendment. But Trevor Southerland, isn't it really kind of unlikely that members of the General Assembly, any member of the General Assembly would want to send the whole process over to the Supreme Court, for them to come up with whatever the heck they're gonna come up with, and you might not even live in your district. Isn't it in everybody's interest, in the General Assembly, Trevor, to vote for one of those maps?

Trevor Southerland
Almost, unless it's it's a person that feels like either they, or their constituents, or some group that they represent has been unfairly taken advantage of, you know? I, maybe, you know, maybe in the House of Delegates, maybe the Republicans and Democrats strike a deal, and the Democrats say, "Hey, you know, Lee Carter's a thorn in our side," and the Republican's say, "Dave LaRock's a pain in our wherever." And you know, maybe they make a deal. And they, they move the districts around just a little bit, and Lee Carter and Dave LaRock suddenly can't win re-election. So maybe you see, you know, Lee Carter and David LaRock vote against it, maybe a couple of people join them. Maybe some members of the Black Caucus are upset because they don't have representation on this commission, and they vote against it. It's it's a, it's a couple different scenarios on the voting.

David Ramadan
And it would be in the, probably, the best interest of Virginia, at that point, to have people that are not as extreme as Carter and LaRock on on issues to be on this matter, because this is where the bipartisanship work. And this is where you can see that that 90% or plus 90% plus, of the General Assembly's voting for it, and only few that are very extreme in their views, on either side, are the ones that are against it. It's a win for Virginia.

Thomas Bowman
I think you might be against this also, if you're one of the legislators who just lose their district under the new map. So to bring it on home, let's talk about Southwest Virginia, where you have legislators like Will Morefield, likely to not have a district to represent come 2021, because, again, of the population change. And I can easily see those legislators just outright objecting to these maps, to throw it to the Supreme Court, hoping the Supreme Court will draw a map that keeps them in their districts, or draws a district where they can, at least try, to come back and win. But I don't want to spend too much more time on what happens if this amendment passes, because we need to talk about what happens if this scenario fails. So let's take a quick break. When we come back, we've got David Ramadan, and we've got Trevor Southerland, to discuss what happens in the redistricting process, without a redistricting amendment.

Michael Pope
And we're back on Transition Virginia. Now we're gonna peer into the future, a future where opponents of this amendment are successful. And Trevor Southerland lands a sweet bonus for killing Amendment One. Congratulations, Trevor, what happens next?

Trevor Southerland
Damn, I should have asked for a bonus. Why did I not do that? Thank you, Michael Pope, I'll go back and try to renegotiate. But, what happens if Amendment One fails is is quite simple. There's a couple of different roads, the Legislature could redistrict under Hb 1255, which makes racial and prison and gerrymandering illegal. The Legislature could set up a commission simply to redistrict for 2021. But then you start working on a constitutional amendment that actually ends gerrymandering, that actually starts in independent commission, and you go down that road and work on passing that.

David Ramadan
I...gerrymandering galore, that's what will happen. There is absolutely, then, an incredible amount of pressure by the supporters of the majority. And that would have happened if Republicans were in the majority, or Democrats are in the majority. To gerrymander, to maintain power, that is a reality of life. There will be pressure from the congressional representatives, and their staff, who are going to request precincts in and precincts out. And there will be 100 ways to go around the bill, that that supposedly would stop gerrymandering, because it specifies four categories. But take it back, Trevor's argument, there's 100 ways to gerrymander, and then there's zero, constitutional protection to gerrymander. And that will be gerrymandering galore.

Thomas Bowman
I have a question. What does a gerrymander even look like? We know that the Democrats and the Republicans have both gerrymandered in the past. In 2011, of course, you look at the lines in Maryland, for a Democratic gerrymander. And you look at the lines in any of the Project Red Map states, for the Republican gerrymander. But do we really think that one, the Democratic Party can get away with the equivalent of a Project Red Map in 2021? Or do we think that it's something more subtle?

David Ramadan
We don't have to look at Project Red Map or anything outside of Virginia. Let's look at what happened in 2011 in Virginia. The Senate was in Democrats hands, the House was in Republicans hands, and they both gerrymandered, and they gerrymander to keep their their current districts, and they gerrymander to make sure other districts are stronger. Democrat districts became more Democratic. The Republican districts became more Republican, districts that that the court changed later, congressional districts, that were minority based, became more minority based. I got into the House because of gerrymandered districts, the district that I ran in, was the left over district that nobody wanted. They were all the precincts that they all shedded it from their previous districts, to make their previous district safer for the incumbents at the time. And if you look at the 87th District map today of the House of Delegates, you will see a crazy looking district that has absolutely no sense to it. So that's what will happen. And you do not need to look further than just what happened in the House and the Senate, with leaders today, that were there in 2011. And we'll have to play by then party pressure and party requirements, and supporters requirements. And they will be up for reelection that following year. So if they don't, you know that they're going to be primaried at that point by anybody who's going to say, "Look, you had the power and you decided not to gerrymander? Now, all of a sudden, you guys are playing good?" Doesn't happen. Reality will set.

Michael Pope
Under the scenario where the amendment fails, it goes back to the kind of normal process of doing things. And there is this thing called the Joint Reapportionment Committee that has, by the way, already been appointed. These members already exist because the amendment hasn't passed yet. So the sort of amendment process is already moving forward on autopilot. This committee has not only been appointed, but it will be meeting this week. And so Trevor Southerland is making the argument, if I'm hearing you right, that there's this new legislation, from Cia Price, that will sort of transform this process, and it won't be the smoke filled room as usual. Explain how this new legislation, Hb 1255, will transform the process if the amendment fails.

Trevor Southerland
It puts guardrails on the process, it does not allow it to be the same process that it was in 2011, where you can do whatever you want. It puts more of rules on how the lines have to be drawn, how the maps have to look, how they take race and everything else into consideration. So it gives us that process. But I also think the Majority Caucus in the House of Delegates, is made up, I think it's over half of them, were not here in 2011. Most of them, for that matter, are new since 2015. And a lot of them are reform minded people who want to end gerrymandering. It's not going to be like the House Republican Caucus was when they were in control. The House Republican Caucus, they do what they're told. They sit there and vote exactly how they're supposed to. The House Democrats are not like that, they have people who will not allow that gerrymandering that Republicans did in 2011, to happen in the reverse.

David Ramadan
He may be right on the House Democrats, but Trevor, totally bypassed the the the Senate Democrats. And if you think, without this Constitution, the leadership in the Senate, and Dick Saslaw is going to simply sit down and say, "Let's play this fair, even if that means I'm gonna hand over this majorities to Tommy Norman," It will be on his dead body before he lets that happen. I mean,

Trevor Southerland
The last time Dick Saslaw drew the lines, he actually did handover his majority to Tommy Norman.

David Ramadan
Not on purpose.

Trevor Southerland
Right. But I think that's part of where you're making my argument, because it's the Senate Democrats that are promoting Amendment One. The people who have gerrymandered, the people who want to continue gerrymandering, they're the ones that seem to be supporting this, in addition to the Republicans. So what you're seeing is, the people who gerrymandered in 2011, supporting Amendment One, and you've got to ask yourself why? And it's because Amendment One actually allows that to continue.

David Ramadan
Oh, come on, you're really gonna go with that argument now?

Trevor Southerland
It's the argument.

David Ramadan
But yet, if Amendment One fails, you think they're not going to gerrymander, right?

Trevor Southerland
I think there are more-

David Ramadan
You can't have it both ways, Trevor. You can't have it both ways.

Michael Pope
Well, now wait a second, we're only having one way in this segment, because in this segment, the amendment has failed.

David Ramadan
So we're talking about overall, it's both ways. It's not happening both ways.

Michael Pope
So the amendment has failed. And we're back to the normal way of doing things. And David Ramadan is laying out a scenario where the Democrats in the House, and the Democrats in the Senate, will do what has always been done in the past, which is draw maps to their benefit, basically, screwing the opponent, really? Trevor Southerland, explain why that wouldn't happen. Explain why the House Democrats wouldn't screw the House Republicans, and the Senate Democrats wouldn't screw the Senate Republicans.

Trevor Southerland
So in the House, at least, it's because you've got a new crew, you've got a new group coming in, they're reform minded, they want to end gerrymandering, they want to see fair districts. And that's what they are going to advocate for. That's what they are going to push the House leadership on. They are not going to do what the Republicans did in 2011 in the House, which was to create a supermajority. That's not what you're going to see.

Michael Pope
The argument is, trust us.

Trevor Southerland
Yeah, the argument is to trust the people that you have overwhelmingly elected in the last five years. Yes. That's why we've sent them there. We sent them there to change politics as usual. That's why we've had such a turnover in the House of Delegates, because we want to see it change.

David Ramadan
Just 15 minutes ago, didn't you question trusting politicians?

Trevor Southerland
Yeah, that's why the ideal formula would be to get them out of it together. But if you can't get them out of it all together, then let's not limit it to just the people who have been there for so long, that are entrenched in the system. Let's make sure the reformers are involved.

Thomas Bowman
So Democratic Senate Leader, Dick Saslaw, was invoked. So let's talk about this. If the amendment fails, I do not think that infighting between Republicans and Democrats is actually going to be the biggest risk. I think the biggest risk is fighting between the Senate and the House. And my reason for that, again, is 2011. What happened? Well, of course, speaking, as a House Democratic staffer, I have a different perspective than Brian Cannon, or, or or others, and I saw that Dick Saslaw, traded Democratic seats in the House, for the edge in the Senate, which he then went ahead and lost anyway. And so if you are, maybe an unpopular member of the House Democratic Caucus, I think that your risk is actually Dick Saslaw, getting rid of you.

David Ramadan
And Dick is a shrewd realist, not an idealist per se, legislature, who holds a lot of power. And if there is no constitutional amendment, it's a big if, because I still believe it would, yes, this will be the biggest fight. And guess what, I again would submit as a former House member, and it hurts me to submit that, that the Senate will win on this one. And at that point, there will be gerrymandering based out of reality, based out of protectionism, based on what happened in the past. And without this amendment, the Senate would prevail on gerrymandered districts. And they will draw dances, and lines, and parties around the existing law that could put some guardrails, but will not stop.

Trevor Southerland
And this is where I think this issue is different. Because the reason the Senate can sometimes win in arguments with the House, and the reason when you see legislation getting traded like that, the Senate wins, is because oftentimes, senators are willing to blow something up. They're willing to do nothing, rather than something. House members are faced with elections every two years, the Senate only has every four, especially at a time, like right now, the House members are already facing down a reelection, while the Senate members still have a little bit of a vacation left. And so that's why the Senate is more willing to blow it up, because they have more opportunity to fix it before an election. However, when it comes to gerrymandered maps, I think the House members are a lot more willing to blow it up because they, I think the reformers are a lot more willing to risk their own seats, and their own positions, than the entrenched politicians are. And they're more willing to blow it up in favor of having fair maps, rather than the possibility of going back to the gerrymandering.

David Ramadan
Yeah, I think I think though, that's not the real power of why the Senate would prevail. The Senate would prevail, the Senate Democrats would prevail over the House Democrats at the time, would be because of the cohesion among them. The entire Democratic Caucus less one or two people, voted for this amendment, on the Senate side. And should it fail, all of the Democrats, including the ones who voted against it, will then be in includes together on getting whatever maps they wanted against the House Democrats who will be divided into two or three groups at the time. And that is their cohesion. They're working together, their power as a group, that Dick Saslaw had kept together brilliantly, is what will be, what will be the power play here that allows them to prevail on gerrymandered maps.

Trevor Southerland
And thankfully, we'll get to see which one of us is right after the amendment fails on the ballot.

David Ramadan
Let's make it let's make it interesting. How about a dinner? Oh, how about a dinner steak dinner?

Thomas Bowman
Steak dinners, post quarantine, for everybody?

Trevor Southerland
Sounds good. Sounds good. We'll do it.

Thomas Bowman
All right. We I'd love to keep exploring this topic, but we actually have even more to get to, we will be right back.

David Ramadan
In the room where it happens.

Michael Pope
We're going to start with question time. This is your opportunity to engage with us. So if you want us to answer your questions, head over to transitionvirginia.com and hit the button that says, "contribute on Patreon." We want to read your questions on the air. This week, we've got two questions from two of our favorite guests, other than the ones that are on the show right now. The first is from Sarah Graham Taylor. She has a question about the debate over this amendment, that's now being used as leverage in the budget debate.

Sarah Graham Taylor
We've heard there's a lot of concern in the House about the redistricting language and the Senate budget. We've heard concerns, it's illegal, concerns the timelines are too tight. Maybe the House just doesn't like it? Who knows anymore. But my question is, what happens if the budget language, regarding redistricting, doesn't pass, or gets stripped out? But the redistricting amendment passes? Are we looking at the possibility of another Special Session?

Michael Pope
David Ramadan? What do you think?

David Ramadan
Possible, however, I don't think it's likely. I think I think they'll figure it out without another Special Session.

Michael Pope
Trevor Southerland, what do you make of the fact that this amendment has become engaged with the current Special Session and the debate over the budget?

Trevor Southerland
Well, I think it's just what you're seeing again, you've seen it for months now, the yes side is attempting to do something to try to make it look like this amendment is better than it is. And they think if they can say they pass this budget language, "Oh, look, we took care of, you know, a couple of problems that the amendment has." So they think that's going to help them win over some more votes. But really, it's just going to show how many flaws the amendment has, and how much work is going to have to be done to try to fix it.

Michael Pope
I think some of the House Democrats, who are on the no side of this, so the House Democrats who hate this amendment, they're trying to get the budget language to have a scenario A and a scenario B. In other words, right now, the enactment language that's in the budget language, that is, you know, they're now considering, only has option A, which is if the amendment passes, here's how the enabling legislation is going to work. But there is no language in that budget language that is in front of them right now, that what if it fails? And what does redistricting look like? And this is actually an opportunity to create some guardrails to possibly prevent some smoke filled back rooms. David Ramadan, why not include some budget language in there about option B? If it doesn't, if the amendment doesn't pass?

David Ramadan
For a couple reasons. One, there is prevailing knowledge here, prevailing belief that it will pass. Two, we the rule of thumb is that the General Assembly does not, and should not, legislate through the budget. It happens all the time. And powerful individuals in the House and the Senate stick things in the budget at the last minute, or even during the process. However, the prevailing rule of thumb, and agreement among members, that you do not legislate through the budget. If this doesn't pass, and then there's a need, there will be bills written. And they will figure out a way and go through the legislative process. And there'd be committee hearings, and there'll be public input in order to figure out the best way to do it at the time. However, there is...and that rule of thumb of not legislating through the budget, is a good rule of thumb, despite the fact that is broken often.

Thomas Bowman
Alright, our second question comes from the mastermind of the Senate Republican defeat, an enemy of this show, Senate Republican Communications Director, Jeff Ryer. He has a question about a problem that might face Democrats in drawing districts to benefit themselves politically.

Jeff Ryer
Considering the severity of demographic clustering of Virginia Democrats, and the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, how can a Democrat majority redistricting plan be produced with districts that are geographically compact?

Thomas Bowman
Trevor, are Democrats facing a problem because they're so heavily clustered in Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Hampton Roads?

Trevor Southerland
Well, I mean, it's it's one of those things that you know, you like to think it could be a problem, but I don't actually think it is because that's where the people are clustered. Earlier in this podcast, we talked about how Southwest Virginia is likely to lose one or two seats because of the loss of population. And where has the population grown? It's in Northern Virginia, it's in the crescent, it's in Richmond and Hampton Roads. So no, I don't think it's going to be that much of a problem, because Jeff Ryer may not realize this, because he hasn't gone to where people are in a while. But that's where the people are.

David Ramadan
May not be a problem, but it will be a challenge. It's true that those those districts who move to Northern Virginia, just like what happened 2011, including my district, that used to be down in the Southeastern part of the district of the state, in the Norfolk Hampton area, actually, and moved to Northern Virginia because of the change in population. However, that will create a huge challenge for the majority Democrats in this because they will be cutting out the districts that they currently are elected in, and their members is going to want certain parts of the district, despite the fact that they have or want to keep parts of their districts, despite the fact that they have to cut it up. So it will create challenge it will create more of an internal problem for the Democratic majority than it would in normal effects.

Thomas Bowman
Any final thoughts or comments on the topic of redistricting, or in response to these questions?

David Ramadan
Vote yes to Amendment One and Amendment Two. They are good for Virginia. Good for the people. And good for our political system.

Trevor Southerland
Vote no on Amendment One because it's important that we get politicians out of the process, while also not excluding Black and Brown Virginians.

David Ramadan
You had to go there. You had to go there, even though Louise Lucas and Mamie Locke is on that. I just don't see how you can make that argument ever. You guys keep repeating it.

Michael Pope
Alright everybody, that's it for this episode. But if you have questions or comments about what you just heard, or maybe you want to tell us how much you love Transition Virginia, write an email and send it to us at TransitionVApodcast@gmail.com. Maybe we'll even read it on the air. You can also subscribe to Transition Virginia anywhere pods are cast, follow the transition team on Twitter @TransitionVA or find us on the web at transitionvirginia.com.