Federalist Radio Hour: Why Virginia’s Twisted Gerrymander Won’t Survive Judicial Review

This episode of The Federalist Radio Hour examines Virginia's controversial mid-decade redistricting effort, where Democrats are pushing a referendum to bypass an independent commission and redraw congressional maps in a way that critics call a 'twisted gerrymander.' Host Matt Kittle interviews Charles Blahaus, Senior Research Strategist at the Mercatus Center, who argues that the real constitutional issue isn't partisan bias but the map's grotesque geographic contortion—violating Virginia's own compactness requirement. Blahaus emphasizes that while partisan gerrymandering isn't unconstitutional, the distortion of district shapes undermines the foundational principle of geographic representation. He critiques the use of metrics like the 'efficiency gap' as legally and philosophically flawed, advocating instead for a simple, mathematically intuitive standard—perimeter squared divided by area—to define compactness. The episode also explores the hypocrisy of Democrats who once championed independent commissions but now seek to abandon them for temporary political advantage. Legal challenges are expected, both on procedural grounds and constitutional compactness, with implications for future redistricting battles nationwide. Despite the inevitability of political influence in mapmaking, Blahaus insists that protecting geographic integrity is a non-partisan goal worth pursuing. Key takeaways include: (1) The core problem with gerrymanders is not partisan tilt but geographic contortion; (2) Virginia’s compactness requirement, though in place, may be violated by the proposed map; (3) Simple geometric standards like the perimeter-to-area ratio can objectively measure district fairness; (4) Independent commissions aren’t inherently better—bipartisan gerrymandering can still occur; (5) The 'temporary' justification for abandoning commissions is disingenuous and sets a dangerous precedent; (6) The Supreme Court may not intervene federally, but state courts could strike down maps violating state constitutional compactness; (7) Gerrymandering will persist unless states adopt enforceable, non-partisan standards; (8) Voters should judge maps by shape, not just outcome—intuition matters.