Virginia’s high court tossed a clearly gerrymandered map, and the response from some Democrats crossed a line—calling for extreme fixes and even invoking language about abolishing government rather than accepting a constitutional ruling.

The Virginia Supreme Court found a redrawn map unconstitutional and struck it down after concluding the Democratic process violated the state constitution. That map had delivered what critics called a 10-1 advantage that effectively suppressed Republican representation. Instead of taking the ruling and moving on, some Democratic operatives chose escalation over accountability.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones has signaled he will seek intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, but the legal grounds look weak and hinge on a narrow question about when Election Day occurs. That makes the appeal seem less about a strong legal theory and more about buying time or scoring political points. Conservatives see this as a last-ditch effort to preserve an obvious partisan edge.

Marc Elias, a high-profile Democratic lawyer, went further and floated extreme remedies that alarmed legal scholars. His invocation of revolutionary language from Article I of the Virginia Constitution suggested radical options instead of respecting the judiciary’s decision. That rhetoric prompted sharp pushback from law professors and commentators who view it as an attack on stable democratic norms.

Democratic lawyer Marc Elias appears to believe that Democrats do not need to stop at simply sacking and packing the Virginia Supreme Court in response to the adverse ruling on the radical gerrymandering plan. Elias reminded Democrats that they could eliminate the entire Virginia government under the state constitution.

The demand for radical action was prompted by the Virginia justices, including one appointed by then-Democratic governor Mark Warner, who found the Democratic effort unconstitutional. It does not matter that leading Democrats, including Gov. Abigail Spanberger, also believed that the Democrats could be found in violation of the state constitution in pushing forward with the controversial effort to virtually extinguished Republican representation in the purple state.

[…]

Elias responded to the loss by invoking language from Article I of the Virginia Constitution itself:

“whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”

That is his response to a well-reasoned decision of unconstitutionality of a redistricting plan. We can scrap the entire Virginia government

It is another example of the “by any means necessary” culture of the left today. There is no institution or value that is sacred. This is why I recently wrote about the rise of “the new Jacobins” in my book Rage and the Republic, lawyers and law professors rationalizing the trashing of the Constitution and our institutions to achieve their political goals.

Elias has long been controversial for his tactics.

It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was later indicted but acquitted).

Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. When journalists discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie, they were reportedly stonewalled. The campaign was ultimately sanctioned by the Federal Election Commission for the subterfuge.

Jonathon Turley, the law professor who called out Elias, framed the argument as dangerously untethered from constitutional respect. Turley’s critique pointed to a pattern: when political tactics fail in court, some on the left turn to rhetoric about overturning institutions rather than accepting judicial rulings. That attitude makes constitutional government harder to defend and invites retaliation the next time the shoe is on the other foot.

This drama isn’t just about lawyers trading barbs. It’s about whether officials will respect the rule of law when it rules against them, especially after a state-level process produced a blatantly skewed outcome. Responsible leaders would push for fair maps and clean processes, not legal gymnastics and apocalyptic talk designed to keep an electoral edge.

Republicans and independents watching this want a return to straightforward contests where voters matter and courts enforce the rules. Calls to abolish or radically remake government in response to an adverse ruling should not be treated as clever strategy. They are a recipe for chaos and a direct challenge to the idea that democracy proceeds within legal bounds.

At stake is more than one map; it is whether parties accept loss under law or escalate to tactics that hollow out institutions. The right response is accountability and reform, not threats and radical rhetoric. If the goal is stable self-government, that should guide the next moves from both activists and elected officials in Virginia and beyond.