In a wildly inflammatory section on Saturday’s version of The Weekend: Primetime, MS NOW analyst Basil Smikle declared Republican-led redistricting and different strikes tantamount to “an American model of apartheid.”
In his view, forbidding using race in redistricting is “the removing of the civic alternative, civic engagement, for black folks.”
Earlier within the section, regulation professor James Pattern admitted that the Virginia Supreme Court docket’s determination hanging down the Democrat mid-decade energy seize was “most likely proper on the regulation” — earlier than declaring it a “catastrophe for our democracy” anyway.
Sure, actually.
Professor James Pattern: “The choice of the Virginia Supreme Court docket, I feel, is a catastrophe for our democracy. It’s most likely proper on the regulation, and it’s really a pro-voter safety determination.”
Basil Smikle: “That is going to be tantamount to an American model of apartheid… proscribing black civic engagement… That to me rings very true to an American model of apartheid.”
The panel then pivoted from that explosive declare to wallowing in doom and gloom, repeatedly declaring the state of affairs “very, very grim” and suggesting Democrats have nearly no authorized recourse.
The hanging admission that the Virginia Supreme Court docket received the regulation proper — mixed with the fast pivot to hysterical “apartheid” rhetoric — completely captures the fashionable Democratic/liberal media mindset. Even when the opposite facet follows the principles and wins pretty, it’s nonetheless illegitimate, racist, and catastrophic.
That is what occurs when your facet loses on the deserves: You don’t rethink your place. You simply crank the apocalyptic language as much as eleven and scream “apartheid!”
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Democrats spent months ramming via a procedurally flawed mid-decade referendum (after over 1,000,000 Virginians had already voted early), and when the court docket appropriately known as them on it, the response is to check it to essentially the most infamous trendy instance of white segregation.
Welcome to the resistance, 2026 version.
Word: On the finish of the section, MS NOW Republican Elise Jordan admitted that from the bounce, the regulation was in opposition to the Virginia Democrats’ try to push via the redistricting, nevertheless it was “a valiant effort” to encourage their base. Humorous: we did not hear a lot of that honesty earlier, when the Dems and the liberal media had been extolling the referendum as manna from heaven!
Here is the transcript.
MS NOW
The Weekend: Primetime
5/9/26
6:04 pm EDTANTONIA HYLTON: So James, you and I had a dialog the opposite day about all of this as I used to be processing these rulings in actual time. You do an excellent job of bringing us again right down to earth. You known as the Virginia determination a quote, “defensive, or defensible ruling,” an “indefensible panorama.” Break that down for me.
PROFESSOR JAMES SAMPLE: What I imply by that, Antonia, is that the ruling in Virginia is defensible — and from the very starting, way back to October, way back to a few weeks in the past when the district court docket in Virginia got here up with seven grounds on which the district court docket discovered the method problematic, I mentioned that this one floor, the bottom on which it was finally held to be unconstitutional underneath the state structure of Virginia, was on the very least a reputable — severe, non-frivolous argument.
And let’s be clear, Virginia put in place state constitutional provisions that had been meant to safeguard and to be structural protections that make it troublesome to amend their structure as a matter of state constitutional regulation. They didn’t put that in place for this, it’s been in place for many years.
And the fundamental synopsis of why this was held to be unconstitutional underneath Virginia regulation is that in an effort to amend the Virginia State Structure, you might want to move an modification via the Home of Delegates, via the Meeting. There must be a normal election for the Home of Delegates, after which it must move once more, so you may have two completely different legislatures move the identical modification.
What occurred right here is that voters began voting for the legislature in September of 2025. Forty p.c of the voters who forged a vote within the normal Home of Delegates election voted previous to the modification being handed within the Home of Delegates in late October.
To be clear, the choice of the Virginia Supreme Court docket, I feel, is a catastrophe for our democracy. It’s most likely proper on the regulation, and it’s really a pro-voter safety determination.
. . .
BASIL SMIKLE: I mentioned this when Texas entered the fray to attempt to do their redistricting, and I mentioned, that is going to be tantamount to an American model of apartheid, as a result of it’s not nearly congressional seats — what the congressional seats permits states to do is then redistrict state legislative seats, metropolis council seats, all the way in which right down to even faculty board elections, proper?
So when you concentrate on the removing of the civic alternative, civic engagement, for black folks, the truth that the president reclassified sure jobs the place there are concentrations of girls, significantly ladies of shade, as professionals, making it troublesome to get scholar loans, proscribing now with the Supreme Court docket’s assist, who can go to varsity and what schools they’ll go to, after which what number of a whole bunch of 1000’s of African American ladies misplaced their jobs. So there’s additionally an financial assault on African People right here.
So whenever you put these two issues collectively, to me it says you’re making an attempt to, via centralized, you’re making an attempt to centralize via our complete federal paperwork and have it trickle right down to the states, the restriction of black civic engagement and financial, that to me rings very true to, you already know, of an American model of apartheid that’s not simply unshakable [sic] within the close to time period.
AYMAN MOHYELDIN: So the query is, do the Democrats have any authorized recourse right here with all of this redistricting that’s happening? They’re making an attempt to degree the taking part in subject, or is it simply gonna come down merely, on the poll field that they’re going to have their greatest and remaining probability at regaining energy?
JAMES: I don’t suppose they’ve a lot authorized recourse. They actually don’t have authorized recourse in Virginia. That is an impartial and sufficient state floor, which signifies that the U.S. Supreme Court docket doesn’t actually have jurisdiction to overturn what occurred.
. . .
I’m much less optimistic than many individuals. I don’t know that, I feel that we may find yourself with sixty p.c of the vote producing forty p.c of the seats. Let’s be, I imply, that is very, very stark, and Antonia mentioned I deliver her down, however realistically —
SMIKLE: I agree.
SAMPLE: That is what I used to be speaking about earlier. It’s not simply grim, it’s actually, actually, grim.
SMIKLE: However now we’re in a state of affairs the place issues do look very, very grim.
. . .
ELISE JORDAN: Such as you mentioned, like I feel that James’s level, he’s addressing actuality. The regulation was in opposition to them [the Virginia referendum promoters.] And it was a valiant effort, within the sense that they mobilized their supporters, they received to indicate the power, they usually get to see what’s there and who’s there to struggle, nevertheless it simply wasn’t gonna go to the end line.
