Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger defended a newly approved redistricting referendum during an interview Wednesday but sidestepped a question about whether the measure conflicted with her past campaign stance.
“So, when we found the results out, I was really excited but not surprised,” Spanberger told host Wolf Blitzer during CNN’s “The Situation Room” after he asked about the referendum’s narrow approval. “Because it’s been clear for a number of months that Virginians were really motivated to take this temporary responsive stance,” she added.
The interview came after Virginia voters approved the redistricting referendum. The measure allows for revised congressional maps ahead of the midterm elections in November, with supporters arguing it responds to similar efforts in Republican-led states.
When pressed on criticism that the measure allows politicians to “choose their voters,” Spanberger defended the process as transparent and voter-driven.
FORMER VIRGINIA GOVERNOR CHALLENGES SPANBERGER TO DEBATE HER REDISTRICTING FLIP-FLOP
“Well, I think that that’s fair criticism of places like Texas, where it was the legislature that pushed through a redistricting effort without any buy-in from the people,” she said. “Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, certainly it was the General Assembly that drew the maps, but the maps were made available to the public.”
Blitzer later raised a broader concern, asking how Spanberger would respond to critics who argue that political retaliation through redistricting escalates a national “arms race.” Spanberger pointed to President Donald Trump starting the trend.
“I think it really depends on leadership from the top,” she said. “Importantly, this all began because President Trump said he was entitled to more congressional seats and implored his friends in Texas to make that happen for him.”
CBS HOST PRESSES FORMER AG ON DEFENDING PARTISAN REDISTRICTING EFFORTS IN VIRGINIA
Blitzer followed up with a more pointed critique, asking what Spanberger would say to those who believe “two wrongs don’t necessarily make a right.” Spanberger acknowledged the concern but did not directly address whether her current position aligned with her prior campaign rhetoric.
“You know, I hear them, and I won’t argue with that point,” she said. “But I think that the people of Virginia, when looking at the landscape of what is occurring across the country, the people of Virginia said we want to take this temporary responsive effort.”
Instead, Spanberger pivoted to broader political messaging, arguing the referendum reflected voter frustration with national conditions.
“I think we will see a wave election,” she said, citing “a rebuke of President Trump and his failed policies and yet another war in the Middle East and rising gas costs.”
DAVID MARCUS: DESPERATE DEMS TAP OBAMA TO PITCH VIRGINIA GERRYMANDERING LIES
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
Spanberger addressed criticism from constituents who viewed the referendum as partisan, again shifting focus away from the question of campaign consistency.
“I campaigned on a broad array of issues,” she said. “There are many bills and many priorities that I am going to support that a whole host of Virginians will support, and there may be some that not everybody does.
“We also saw tens of millions of dollars in lies put on television saying that I was supportive of a ‘no’ vote, that President Obama was supportive of a ‘no’ vote,” she said. “And, frankly, across Virginia, I heard from people saying, ‘I wasn’t sure how I was gonna vote.’ Then I saw those lies.”
Public campaign finance data shows that both sides of the referendum battle spent significant amounts with combined expenditures reaching into the tens of millions of dollars, reflecting the high stakes of the redistricting fight.
Spanberger argued that the tone of the opposition campaign ultimately backfired with voters.
“I think, frankly, some of the mechanics of how the ‘no’ vote actually tried to trick people here in the Commonwealth of Virginia made people feel really fed up,” she said.
