Courage. That is the word we have heard time and again in American politics, though its meaning seems to shift with the political winds. Today, we find ourselves examining a situation in Virginia that raises questions about the very nature of political courage versus political opportunism.
Democratic Governor Wes Moore of Maryland has been making the rounds, defending the practice of congressional redistricting with a simple message: “I think it is important that people fight.” His words come as Virginia finds itself embroiled in a controversy that has Republicans seeing red and Democrats defending their actions as perfectly legitimate political maneuvering.
At the heart of this matter stands Virginia Delegate Dan Helmer, a Democratic state lawmaker who played a significant role in pushing through congressional redistricting in the Commonwealth. Now, Helmer has announced his intention to run for Congress in one of the newly drawn districts. The timing has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, though the accusations fly primarily from one direction.
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore did not mince words when discussing the situation. “I think it does look bad,” Kilgore stated plainly. “The whole process looks terrible, because all it is a power grab. We feel the optics are bad.”
The Virginia Republican Party has been equally direct in its criticism, arguing that Democrats are engaging in a corrupt practice by selecting nominees from among those who drew the congressional maps. The charge is serious and cuts to the core of public trust in the democratic process.
This is not merely a Virginia story. The redistricting battle for control of the House of Representatives runs through multiple states, and what happens in Virginia could serve as a template, for better or worse, in other legislative chambers across the nation.
The fundamental question here is one of propriety rather than legality. There appears to be no law preventing a state legislator who participates in redistricting from subsequently running in a district that was redrawn. But as any student of American politics knows, what is legal and what appears ethical to voters can be two entirely different matters.
Democrats would argue that they are simply playing by the rules of a system that both parties have used for decades. Redistricting has always been a political exercise, they would say, and to pretend otherwise is naive. Republicans counter that this represents a particularly brazen example of self-dealing that undermines public confidence in the electoral system.
The optics, as Kilgore noted, are indeed problematic. When lawmakers redraw district lines and then immediately seek to represent those newly configured constituencies, it creates an appearance of manipulation that feeds public cynicism about the political process.
As this situation continues to develop, voters in Virginia will ultimately render their judgment. Whether they view Helmer’s candidacy as legitimate political ambition or as an unseemly power grab remains to be seen. What is certain is that this controversy will not end with Virginia, and the precedent being set will echo through future redistricting battles across America.
Related: Former Victoria’s Secret CEO Tells Congress He Was Conned by Jeffrey Epstein
