The March 26 Metro article “Partisan fight in Va. has claws” correctly laid out the dilemma facing Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) regarding the proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting. Can she reconcile her “moderate” image with perhaps the most partisan gerrymandering imaginable? Not if she has supported these maps at every turn.
The proposal would trash the current congressional maps, which were drawn by the voter-approved bipartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission. In their place, the General Assembly would draw maps that give Democrats a 10-to-1 edge in the state’s congressional delegation, which now features six Democrats and five Republicans.
Though Spanberger has no role in the General Assembly’s ability to propose a constitutional amendment, she certainly has the power to shape both the district maps and the language presented to the people at the polls. These can be enacted only by a bill in the General Assembly and therefore require her signature.
Spanberger could have refused to endorse these egregious maps; she could have proposed amendments to at least attempt to keep communities of interest together; or she could have simply sent the budget bill back to the General Assembly with an amendment striking its unfair and confusing ballot language inviting voters “to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.”
While “moderation” can be in the eye of the beholder, we think Virginians will see this naked partisan power grab for what it is — and remember who supported it.
John Chapman “Chap” Petersen, Fairfax, and William H. Fralin Jr., Roanoke
John Chapman “Chap” Petersen, a Democrat, is a former member of the Virginia Senate. William H. Fralin Jr., a Republican, is a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates.
Virginia Democrats are asking voters to approve mid‑decade redistricting under a familiar and powerful phrase: “restore fairness.” I’m a 27-year-old independent and have lived in Virginia my entire life. I supported the creation of the Virginia Redistricting Commission because it was presented to voters as a durable reform designed to protect representation from political retaliation and national pressure. It was meant to be a restraint, not a suggestion.
Virginia’s current congressional map was drawn under a system voters approved just a few years ago. That system, established through a constitutional amendment, was designed to balance representation, limit partisan bias and remove direct map‑drawing authority from lawmakers. To argue that fairness now requires sidelining that system suggests that fairness is being redefined not as neutral process but as alignment with national political outcomes.
Supporters emphasize that this amendment would expire before maps are drawn after the next census. But if Virginians approve an exception today because it serves a broader political strategy, future lawmakers will have precedent on their side.
Redistricting does not happen in the abstract. It reshapes how communities are grouped, whose votes carry weight, and which voices are diluted or enhanced. Telling those voters that their districts are being changed — not because population shifted or constitutional standards failed, but because national politics demanded it — undercuts confidence in the representational bargain itself.
If you’re on the fence, consider this simple standard: The process you support today is the process your political opponents will use tomorrow. Democracy is not a tool you wield when you like the outcome and set aside when you don’t. “Restore fairness” is persuasive language, but a fair system does not require taking representation from people you disagree with to feel represented yourself.
Natalie Harrison, Fairfax
Virginia voters recently received mailers claiming former president Barack Obama is urging voters to vote no on the upcoming redistricting referendum in Virginia. However, as the March 17 Metro article “Democrats hoping Virginia can thwart Trump’s plans” noted, Obama has publicly urged voters to vote yes.
This strategy further entrenches the Republican Party’s hypocrisy: Redistricting to favor the GOP is okay for red states, but it’s not fair for blue states to try the same strategy. Whatever qualms voters have had in the past about the ethics of gerrymandering are no longer relevant in this poisonous era.
Maria Puente, Falls Church
Honor the captain and first officer
The March 24 front-page article “Audio reveals tense moments surrounding crash” identified the two people killed in the LaGuardia crash as the jet’s “pilot and co-pilot.”
It would have been more accurate to refer to them by their proper titles of “captain” and “first officer.” It is the same in the military and other fields; you refer to people’s proper title and rank. Not a generic nontitle.
As a pilot myself, I believe the captain and first officer saved lives by choosing not to swerve the plane to avoid the emergency vehicle. Swerving the plane could have resulted in a fatal blow to the passenger cabin. Instead, they kept the plane straight as it hit into the emergency vehicle, sacrificing their own lives.
Daniel Lieberson, Olney
Post Opinions wants to know: Are you in a relationship with someone who holds different religious beliefs? If so, how do you make it work? Any upsides or downsides? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/house_of_worship
The post Virginia’s new maps show a partisan power grab. Will voters mind? appeared first on Washington Post.
