A Roanoke College poll shows more Virginians oppose than support the Democrats’ proposed vote on a Constitutional amendment to allow mid-decade redistricting of Virginia’s eleven Congressional seats.
Specifically, 52% oppose the new plan. This narrow majority would agree with a “No” vote on the amendment.
In contrast, 44% agree with the amendment, meaning they would vote “Yes.”
As with any polling, the wording is crucial. In many cases, how a poll is worded can influence how respondents answer.
In this case, the Roanoke College poll worded the item this way:
“The General Assembly passed an amendment to the Virginia Constitution allowing them to do mid-decade redistricting and approve a new map which is thought to favor Democrats in 10 of the 11 Congressional districts in Virginia. A special election must be held for voters to approve the amendment before any mid-decade redistricting can take effect. If you had to decide today, would you vote to approve the amendment to allow mid-decade redistricting, or keep the current process as it is now?”
The results are:
Vote to approve 44%
Keep as it is now 52%
Don’t Know 4%
The above wording of the Roanoke College poll, however, differs vastly from the current wording of the actual ballots that are slated for Virginia voters to read.
As posted to the official Virginia Department of Elections website, voters will read this on their ballots:
“Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”
One reason many oppose the proposed Constitutional amendment is the ballot’s wording, “restore fairness.” Opponents claim that wording on a ballot should be neutral, so as not to prejudice the voter, but the phrase “restore fairness” clearly is not neutral. In what some call “Orwellian,” the ballot is written in a way to imply a “no” vote is “against fairness.”
You can read more about the proposed 10-to-1 gerrymandered maps here.
In this story, you can read more about the February 19 ruling from a judge in Tazewell County issuing a temporary restraining order against the proposed vote for new Congressional lines.
This is a developing story. Check back here often for updates.
– Scott Dreyer
