« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Virginia Redeistricting Referendum

By: CTJ in GRITZ | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 23 Apr 26 6:43 AM | 7 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 17267 of 17267
(This msg. is a reply to 17265 by Zimbler0)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Early in person voting was about even but leaned a little YES.

Early mail-in voting leaned a little YES

Election Day in person voting leaned solid NO.

Election Day mail-in voting was overwhelming YES VOTE about 70% vs 30%

65,000 mail-in YES votes showed up Election Day evening.
Just in Fairfax county 35,000 absentee ballots.

Mail-in voting won the election. Voter fraud.

The Democrat just passed a law making it illegal to do hand counts of ballots. All ballot counting by law has to be machine counted in Virginia.


Democrat Party. The party of Misery, Violence and Hate.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Virginia Redeistricting Referendum
By: Zimbler0
in GRITZ
Thu, 23 Apr 26 2:18 AM
Msg. 17265 of 17267

Zim: It seems Virginia held a 'special election' to enable the lying thieving election stealing demo-rats to 'redistrict' Virginia such that instead of the 6 to 5 advantage that the lying thieving dem-rats currently enjoy - could be changed to a 10 to 1 advantage.

I strongly suspect that 'mail in ballots' were used to STEAL this election.

And, now there is this headline :

>>>

Virginia Judge Blocks Dems’ Redistricting Referendum, Rules Plaintiffs Have ‘Extraordinarily High Likelihood of Success’

http://amgreatness.com/2026/04/22/virginia-judge-blocks-dems-redistricting-referendum-rules-plaintiffs-have-extraordinarily-high-likelihood-of-success/

A Virginia Circuit Court judge on Wednesday granted an emergency injunction blocking the April 21 redistricting referendum while the case is heard in court.

Tazewell County Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled that the referendum was likely unconstitutional as it violated procedural requirements in the Virginia Constitution, including the timing of the vote and the failure to publish the amendment three months before the prior general election.

The Tazewell Circuit Court also ruled the ballot language was misleading, specifically the phrase “restore fairness,” which Hurley determined could improperly influence voters by implying opposition is unfair.

The constitutional amendment was framed on the ballot as a vote “to restore fairness in the upcoming elections.” It narrowly passed Tuesday night by a margin of 51.5 percent to 48.5 percent.

In his written ruling, Hurley said the plaintiffs had an “extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits.”

>>>

(Article does continue. Zim.)


« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next