為什麽說弗吉尼亞州的這次修憲過程是違憲的。

According to the Constitution of Virginia, specifically Article XII, Section 1, amending the document requires a multi-step "slow-walk" process designed to prevent hasty changes. [12]
 
The Procedure to Amend the Virginia Constitution
  1. First Legislative Vote: A majority of both the House of Delegates and the Senate must approve the proposed amendment.
  2. Intervening General Election: A general election for members of the House of Delegates must occur after the first vote but before the second. This gives voters an indirect opportunity to voice their views by electing representatives based on their stance on the proposal.
  3. Second Legislative Vote: The newly elected General Assembly must approve the exact same amendment language a second time during its first regular session.
  4. Public Referendum: If passed twice, the amendment is submitted to qualified voters in a statewide referendum. If a majority approves, it becomes part of the Constitution.
  5. Public Notice: The proposed amendment must be published for at least 90 days before the second legislative vote or the final referendum. [1234567810]
 
How the Redistricting Amendment Failed This Procedure
On May 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled in Scott v. McDougle that the Democratic-led legislature failed to follow this process: [12]
  • Timing of the "Intervening Election": The General Assembly took its first vote on October 31, 2025—just four days before the November 4 "Election Day". However, the court ruled that an "election" includes the entire voting period, which had already begun via early voting on September 19.
  • Deprived Voter Participation: By voting after 1.3 million Virginians (roughly 40% of the electorate) had already cast their ballots, the legislature deprived those voters of the chance to consider the amendment when choosing their delegates.
  • Procedural Shortcut: Critics and the court noted the amendment was advanced during a budget-focused special session, further bypassing intended transparency and consistency safeguards. [1234567]
The court concluded this violation "incurably taints" the process, rendering the voter-approved referendum null and void regardless of the outcome at the polls. [12]

所有跟帖: 

民主黨又把事情弄砸了。為什麽不能早點開始 -voiceofme- 給 voiceofme 發送悄悄話 voiceofme 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/08/2026 postreply 20:51:25

主黨計劃上訴最高院,請問采用的依據是什麽? -Uusequery- 給 Uusequery 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 05/08/2026 postreply 21:08:45

最高法院怎麽能裁決州憲法的修憲過程?但州高院不應該在允許投票後又裁決投票過程是違憲的。 -voiceofme- 給 voiceofme 發送悄悄話 voiceofme 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/08/2026 postreply 21:13:24

如此出爾反爾,要媲美川普了。 -voiceofme- 給 voiceofme 發送悄悄話 voiceofme 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/08/2026 postreply 21:15:06

那為何還上訴呢? -Uusequery- 給 Uusequery 發送悄悄話 (250 bytes) () 05/08/2026 postreply 21:19:39

你問我,我問誰啊 -voiceofme- 給 voiceofme 發送悄悄話 voiceofme 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/08/2026 postreply 21:21:04

討論嘛,看有誰知道。 -Uusequery- 給 Uusequery 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 05/08/2026 postreply 21:22:09

我想法院沒有權利阻止投票,但有權判定內容是否生效. -swart- 給 swart 發送悄悄話 swart 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 07:46:06

投票前,法院就知道投票內容了。 -voiceofme- 給 voiceofme 發送悄悄話 voiceofme 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 07:53:48

法院不是執法部門,你投不投票,不關他事兒,他隻負責判斷是否合法 -swart- 給 swart 發送悄悄話 swart 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 08:07:47

可能五名法官中有一人態度轉變。兩次做裁決應該是兩次投票的結果,而最後這次投票結果是2比3,如果第一次投票是三名法官支持, -天青水藍- 給 天青水藍 發送悄悄話 天青水藍 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 08:08:34

兩人反對,於是通過實行公投。第二次投票支持陣營中一人改變態度為反對,於是投票結果被否決。 -天青水藍- 給 天青水藍 發送悄悄話 天青水藍 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 08:10:13

如果法院認為就選區重劃投票就違憲,是可以禁止投票的 -天青水藍- 給 天青水藍 發送悄悄話 天青水藍 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 09:10:00

Courts generally do NOT block a vote before it happens -swart- 給 swart 發送悄悄話 swart 的博客首頁 (661 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 09:16:35

明知公投違憲不製止,不是白白浪費納稅人的錢嗎? -天青水藍- 給 天青水藍 發送悄悄話 天青水藍 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/09/2026 postreply 11:18:38

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!