Even After Virginia, Democrats Aren’t Out of This Fight

Summary

The Bulwark — “Even After Virginia, Democrats Aren’t Out of This Fight”

Date: May 8, 2026
Hosts: Sam Steinman Jingard and Sarah Longwell

---

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the recent Supreme Court of Virginia decision striking down the state's redistricting law—a move with major implications for Democratic hopes to regain House seats in the 2026 election. Hosts Sam Steinman Jingard and Sarah Longwell walk listeners through the legal, political, and tactical fallout, situating the news in the broader context of aggressive Republican-led redistricting across the South. Despite these setbacks and what’s shaping up as a tough news cycle, the hosts analyze the ongoing path for Democrats, touching on both the challenges and opportunities ahead.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Supreme Court of Virginia Strikes Down Redistricting Law

• [00:00–02:55]
  • What Happened: The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the Democratic-backed redistricting law was unconstitutional on procedural grounds. As a result, the political maps revert to their pre-redraw state.
  • Implications: This potentially negates a projected gain of four House seats for Democrats in Virginia. They may still eke out up to two seats, but these are now longer shots.
  • Host Take: Sam: “A potential gain of four House seats for Democrats has now been reversed. … Democrats could still net two seats because of circumstances, but… it’s going to take a pretty strong election year.” [00:17]

2. The Redistricting Domino Effect (Texas, California, Southern States)

• [00:54–04:05]
  • National Context: Republican-led legislatures in four Southern states are rapidly moving to eliminate VRA (Voting Rights Act) districts, tilting the map further to their advantage.
  • Unprecedented Moves: Texas’ mid-cycle redistricting is described as “very unusual,” starting a chain reaction that led other states to follow suit.
  • Gerrymandering Worsens: Sarah: “When all was said and done was basically going to leave us with much stupider maps overall, like much more gerrymandered across a whole bunch of different states.” [01:37]
  • Tactics in Louisiana: Governor Landry stopped a primary specifically to enable redistricting, demonstrating the aggressive maneuvering underway.

3. Legality and Process Behind the Virginia Decision

• [02:55–04:30]
  • Procedural Error: The episode carefully outlines that Virginia’s General Assembly voted to approve a referendum after early voting had begun, violating the state constitution.
  • Sam summarizes: “They had this General Assembly vote in October. … The court said… you can’t have that first vote… after early voting… had started. So… we have to go back to those original maps.” [03:13]

4. Democratic Setback—But Not a Total Defeat

• [04:30–06:20]
  • Unexpected Legal Challenge: Though Democrats likely anticipated a court fight, they were surprised at the timing and nature of the Supreme Court’s intervention after the referendum.
  • Financial and Political Stakes: Over $64 million spent by Democrats to flip seats in Virginia; Abigail Spanberger played a key role in pushing the referendum.
  • Sarah: “They poured a ton of resources into it. And Abigail Spanberger basically used all of her political capital from her big win in Virginia… and so people voted on this, and it passed narrowly.” [04:39]

5. Broader Redistricting Landscape and the Supreme Court

• [06:20–07:36]
  • Current Picture: Southern state courts are not intervening against Republican redraws, and it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will either. The narrow interpretation of the VRA (Section 2) leaves little recourse.
  • Net Gain for Republicans? The hosts debate how much advantage Republicans have seized, with Sam citing estimates up to “plus 9, plus 10” in potential House seats, while Sarah suggests maybe only “plus four.”
    • Sam: “You’re going to have something akin to like a plus 9, plus 10, rather Republican gain when all the redistricting is done.” [07:18]
    • Sarah: “I think it was more like plus four.” [07:35]
  • Maps Aren’t Everything: Despite the GOP’s gerrymandering, not all targeted districts are unwinnable for Democrats—electoral environment still matters.
    • Sarah: “…even though they’ve redistricted these places, they haven’t necessarily been able to redistrict all of them to such a degree that they are still unwinnable, many of them are still winnable.” [07:50]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Sam: “A potential gain of four House seats for Democrats has now been reversed. … Democrats could still net two seats… but… it’s going to take a pretty strong election year.” [00:17]
• Sarah: “It is extremely bad that… these are all court decisions.” [02:12]
• Sam: “You can’t have that first vote for this constitutional amendment after early voting… had started. … Ergo, the whole thing is null and void, and we have to go back to those original maps.” [03:13]
• Sarah: “$64 million was spent by Democrats to flip these seats.” [04:32]
• Sam: “The state Supreme Court did not intervene prior to the voting… once they didn’t do that, there was the presumption that… they would be comfortable with the results.” [05:11]
• Sarah: “It is a huge setback for Democrats. And in this redistricting battle you just now do have… Republican states down south… drawing out the Democratic districts as we speak.” [06:20]
• Sam: “You’re going to have something akin to like a plus 9, plus 10, rather Republican gain when all the redistricting is done.” [07:18]
• Sarah: “Even though they’ve redistricted these places, they haven’t necessarily been able to redistrict all of them to such a degree that they are still unwinnable.” [07:50]

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:00 — News breakdown: Virginia Supreme Court strikes down redistricting
• 01:37 — National redistricting context and the growing impact of gerrymandering
• 03:13 — The legal/procedural error in Virginia’s legislative process
• 04:32 — Political stakes: Resource allocation and Spanberger’s role
• 05:11 — Why the Supreme Court’s timing surprised Democrats
• 07:18 — Net gains debate: How much have Republicans added?
• 07:50 — Limits of gerrymandering: Many seats remain competitive

---

Tone & Final Impressions

The tone is pragmatic but not defeatist. Both hosts voice frustration with the accelerating GOP power plays but emphasize the remaining opportunities and Democratic resilience. The theme is clear: legal and procedural setbacks are real, but the fight for the House is not over—and “the environment” could still shift the battlefield in unpredictable ways.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everyone, it's me, Sam Steinman Jingard at the Bulwark. I'm joined by Sarah Longwell, our publisher. We are here to talk about the news, shock news this morning that the Supreme Court of Virginia has struck down the redistricting law that was passed by voters in Virginia just a short while ago. The practical implications in Virginia is that a potential gain of four House seats for Democrats has now been reversed. They're going back to those maps that existed prior to the redraw. And Democrats could still net two seats because of circumstances, but they ain't getting the four seats, likely not going to get the two seats. It's going to take a pretty strong election year. And you got to consider it, Sarah, with all the other things happening currently in the south where Republicans are redrawing about four states to eliminate VRA districts and you are looking at a very bad news cycle for House Democrats. But how bad is it?

[B]

I don't think it's so bad that Democrats aren't still favored to take back the House. I mean, I just think that the overall environment is such that Democrats are still likely to pick up enough seats to win. It's just more like they got to really run the table now. Like, it's not, there's not a lot of room for error. And, you know, it is really deflating for Democrats who I think, you know, Virginia was just a place where Democrats really figured out how to stand up to Trump kicking off this redistricting fight right in Texas. And Trump has been from the start this, this redistricting has been about the fact that they know they're likely going to lose Congress. Trump doesn't want the oversight that comes from a Democratic Congress. He wants to do anything he can to avoid that. So they did mid cycle redistricting, which is very unusual in Texas, which started off a sort of a chain react. Then California passed a referendum saying that they were going to redistrict to pick up a couple more Democratic seats. And for a long time it looked like the whole thing, when all was said and done was basically going to leave us with much stupider maps overall, like much more gerrymandered across a whole bunch of different states and then was going to be about a wash when it came to maybe even a little bit of a Dem pickup. If you were able to get Virginia where they were and you didn't have all of these new states in the south where like rushing, because they are, I mean, in, in, in Louisiana, they literally stopped the primary. Governor Landry stopped the Primary so that they could redistrict and then reallocate the maps going into that election. And so it is extremely bad that the. And these are all court decisions. Right. The reason that this in Virginia, what happened is they basically said that it was unconstitutional on procedural grounds. They're saying that Democrats, when they did this, it's. I don't know if you want me to run through all the specifics.

[A]

I can go through it. I study.

[B]

Well, you do it.

[A]

So the democratic process in Virginia required the General assembly to vote on a constitutional amendment in two occasions. One was prior to an election and one was after an election. And what happened was, is that they voted prior to the election to have this redistricting referendum, but they started that voting after early voting had started for the cycle. So they started the early voting in September. They had this General assembly vote in October. The election for governors, and the state legislature was in November. And then they voted again on the popular referendum a couple weeks ago. What the court said was, no, no, you can't have that first vote for this constitutional amendment after early voting in the election had started. So procedurally, this was done in without compliance to the state constitution. Ergo, the whole thing is null and void, and we have to go back to those original maps. Did I do a good job?

[B]

You did a great job. That's exactly right. I think we should just both stipulate, as I have to do on my podcast, the illegal news all the time. Neither of us are lawyers.

[A]

I'm married to one.

[B]

Yeah. Does she have a quick opinion on whether or not the Supreme Court in Virginia, which is a majority Republican court or Republican appointed court, whether or not this was a fair decision or a not fair decision? Because I just. I don't feel like I'm in a. In a position to evaluate that at the moment.

[A]

I haven't texted her, but she's not also an election lawyer, so I wouldn't really trust her judgment.

[B]

Anyway, I don't know if you have an opinion on the quality of the decision. I just know from a political standpoint. Yeah. Not only is it deflating from one of the biggest stands that Democrats took, because we have to understand, $64 million was spent by Democrats to flip these seats. Like, they poured a ton of resources into it. And Abigail Spanberger basically used all of her political capital from her big win in Virginia to sort of gut this thing out and push it through, and they let people vote. It was a referendum on the ballot. Um, and so people voted on this, and it passed narrowly. But and not by any, not the same margin that Abigail Spamberger won the state. But it did pass. They got it through. I don't think they saw this coming. Like, it's clear that they did not think there was going to be a legal challenge. And so I think Democrats were really caught off guard when suddenly there was a legal challenge only to have their big victory overturned.

[A]

Yeah, I would just clarify on that. They probably anticipated a legal challenge, but I think they were caught off guard because the state Supreme Court did not intervene prior to the voting. Right. So they, you know, they, the state Supreme Court in theory could have said, no, we're going to stay the vote because this is, has some legal, legal ambiguity and you shouldn't go forward. And once they didn't do that, there was the presumption that, well, if they were comfortable with the vote, they would be comfortable with the results. The actual, the, the Supreme Court, the state Supreme Court did address this in their decision not to get too into the weeds. They basically said, we are prohibited from addressing the legality of the vote itself until after the referendum took place. So therefore, they did not weigh in in advance. But it did legitimately did catch some Democrats off guard, even though there was an anticipation that eventually the state Supreme Court was going to have to weigh on it.

[B]

I don't want to sound defeatist on it, but it is, it is a huge setback for Democrats. And in this redistricting battle you just now do have, and this is sort of the big takeaway, you now have a lopsided where the Republican states down south, like Louisiana and some of these other states, Tennessee, are drawing out the Democratic districts as we speak for the 2026 cycle. And the big get of Virginia is off the table for the 20.

[A]

What happens again, we're not lawyers here, so who knows? But those states in the south are getting legal challenges to what they are doing. But the expectation is that, well, first of all, the state courts aren't going to intervene, but that the Supreme Court won't intervene either. Question is, how narrow was the ruling basically gutting the vra? And would Tennessee's new map, for instance, which just decimates Memphis, would that fall out of compliance with the very narrow Section 2 of the VRA? I'm not a lawyer. I have no clue. But the popular opinion is that the Supreme Court will not intervene. They'll allow these things to go through, and you're going to have something akin to like a plus 9, plus 10, rather Republican gain when all the redistricting is done.

[B]

Wow. That's actually bigger than I thought. Plus nine, plus ten.

[A]

What did you think?

[B]

I think it was more like plus four.

[A]

No, maybe that's optimistic. I know Amy Walters has been talking about it, and she looks at the atmospherics and the trends, and she thinks a lot of these districts that, for instance, in Texas. Right. Like, she thinks some of those districts are not going to flip Republican.

[B]

Right. And that I would say that's been my takeaway, too. Right. Is that that in their intention of gerrymandering? Because this all comes down to what is the environment like? And even though they've redistricted these places, they haven't necessarily been able to redistrict all of them to such a degree that they are still unwinnable, many of them are still winnable. And so the environment.