This 2-1 ruling is headed to the Supreme Court. There appears to be a contradiction between the Court’s ruling on gerrymandering (saying it’s legal) and the Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (saying that it it’s illegal because the data on which it is based is obsolete). Does this mean VRA-type “majority-minority districts” are illegal?
Furthermore, as to the facts of the case, Virginia’s lines are not so bad. The districts are relatively compact. It turns out that Democrats tend to be concentrated in urban districts, so that normal looking districts result in a good number of them being Republican.
The particular district under review, the 3rd, is rated very highly Democrat. This occurred by incorporating largely black communities in a district running from Richmond to Norfolk, to the north and to the south of the James River, as well as extending an arm to the City of Petersburg. It is now well established that Congressional lines can cross over bodies of water (in this case, the James River).
I think somebody has already pointed out that the Congressional map isn’t exclusively a product of the Republicans in the state legislature. At the time, the state House was two-thirds Republican, and the state Senate was controlled by the Democrats, and a Republican was Governor. (At this time, both houses are Republican, and the Governor is a Democrat.) So, there was some wheeling and dealing.
Virginia’s delegation is 8 Republicans and 3 Democrats, but among the districts, two are only marginally Republican (R+2). One of these two has an open seat this year because Frank Wolf is retiring. This should be a very competitive race, but we don’t have any public polling. An internal for the Democrat says the race is close, and an internal for the Republican says Barbara Comstock has something of a lead. Barbara has an advantage of this being a Republican year, and in the future should have the advantage of being an incumbent.
I doubt the Democrat Attorney General will appeal.