I have to be honest with you. The Virginia redistricting referendum that passed two weeks ago may or may not have been worded within the constraints of state requirements governing referendum language.

In addition, the referendum process may or may not have entirely adhered to Virginia’s somewhat esoteric requirements regarding the timing of introducing such initiatives.

Right there, you have two different ways the state’s Trump-counterpunch may or may not have failed to follow the rules on its path to the voters. Both possibilities here are arguable, and indeed, they were just argued yesterday in the state’s Supreme Court.

On the other hand, as a non-lawyer, I can tell you that a couple of other things are not arguable:

The voters of Virginia have already considered, voted on, and approved the redistricting referendum as written.

In the most nonpartisan sense possible, the judicial branch in America historically prefers to not be in the business of overturning the electoral will of the people. And that ain’t nothin’.

And so we wait. We wait with Jimmy Cliff, which helps a little.

Courting Controversy
Of course, courts do get involved in elections when they must. Heck, in modern national politics, a party’s legal warchest may be as important as its advertising budget. Perusing history in this area, we see some trends:

Courts get involved when civil rights violations are alleged.
Courts get involved if an activity like a recount may violate a law if allowed to continue.
Courts get involved if fraud or mishandling of ballots or absentee ballots are alleged.
Courts get involved if extraordinary circumstances or malfunctions may hinder voting.

But it’s here that we note that such examples overwhelmingly involve election-day discrepancies or problems. There are no allegations of such issues by anyone involved in this vote. The day went smoothly, even if some people like POTUS remain willfully ignorant of the practical rhythms of counting votes in Virginia.

On a lesser note, history’s contentious examples involve elections, whereas the subject here is a referendum. Giving it a junior-college try, I can’t find any example of a court overturning the result of a referendum or requiring a do-over when there weren’t two actual candidacies at stake. Can you?

Politico has a pretty deep dive on electoral do-overs, such as they have been in U.S. politics.

The Extra Twist
If you want one more reality-based straw to grasp while the Justices deliberate, it’s this: This very same court already had the chance to derail the referendum vote in February, and it declined to do so.

Yes, it knew that the legal challenge would continue if the referendum passed. But it’s one thing for a court to overturn the decision of millions of voters. It’s another thing to do that when you already had a chance to avoid such a situation and nothing substantive has changed in the meantime … other than one party has won and one party has lost. Not a good look.

If we weren’t in the Trump era, I’d feel confident about this. Instead, I feel meh, with a glimmer of hope tied to precedent and judicial caution.

So we wait some more — this time with Guster, who had some POTUS-prescient lyrics for a melancholy song and a situation that could go, well, you know …