Redistricting Amendment Forged Through Compromise

The recent letter from Del. Mark Levine, D-Alexandria, “Delegate argues against amending Virginia Code,” is dripping in cynicism. What’s striking about Levine’s letter is its appeal to fear. This is an old play often utilized by politicians and their apparatchiks. He might as well be saying, “You can’t trust those politicians on Team Red to do the right thing, but you can trust me and politicians on Team Blue. Believe me!” We’ve heard that before. Don’t fall for it.

Is the proposed constitutional amendment perfect? No. Is it, as Levine charges, a back door for returning “absolute power” to the Virginia GOP to redraw Virginia’s political maps? No. If anything, it is a vehicle for strengthening democracy.

We can see this in the proposed redistricting commission’s structure. It will include four Democrats, four Republicans, and eight citizens. Any maps proposed by this commission require bipartisan support. If such support does not exist, then maps will be drawn by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

This amendment’s strength is that it was forged through compromise — imperfect and frustrating as that might be. To function, it requires further compromise. If successful, this process will build trust. This is a testament to the idea that America was founded upon — that a people diverse in background, experience and ideology can govern themselves.

Trust is the only way self-government succeeds. It doesn’t mean we always have to agree with one another — we won’t. But it does mean we must respect one another. That goes beyond mere words. It means we also must share power with people we might otherwise oppose — even vociferously so.

There’s a word for that: tolerance. And it’s a great American value. Vote “yes” to ending

Originally printed as a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Click here to view.