all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4 points 1 year ago

To counter them, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there. The Trump administration filed a federal lawsuit challenging that map, with Attorney General Pam Bondi calling it “a brazen power grab.”

Jesus tittyfucking Christ...

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    And suck cream court juiced ass alito reversed that order to let them fuck the 'coloreds' again

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Hah.

    Sucks to suck.

  • source
  • 24 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Remember, the GOP also has a racial gerrymandering case against CA. Same case, but the state and plaintiff are on the other side of the political aisle.

    The goal is to make sure the SCOTUS basically has to make a call that allows or stops this mid-cycle effort for both states. It’s going to require a lot of mental gymnastics to if they decided to give TX a pass, but not CA for the same damn case.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s going to require a lot of mental gymnastics to if they decided to give TX a pass, but not CA for the same damn case.

    That's never been too hard for today's conservatives, especially this SCOTUS. They've made a few rulings with some bullshit like "this thing is illegal in all cases except this narrow circumstance with Trump".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -42 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Okay now block California's also

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    No, because while racial gerrymandering is illegal because race is a protected class, political gerrymandering is not because political affiliation is not a protected class.

    More specifically: staunchly Republican supporting areas tends to lean heavily white, while staunchly Democratic supporting areas tend to be much more cosmopolitan and racially heterogeneous. This had pretty obvious implications on the legal viability of gerrymandering towards the right in our one-dimensional political system - assuming, of course, anyone actually gives a shit about court orders and precedent, which the current regime (and I lump the Texas state government in with them) kinda doesn’t, so who fucking knows.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    To be fair, the GOP is running the same play in CA. They’re claiming CA’s gerrymandering is racial and needs to be halted.

    This case is good because, if it goes to the SCOTUS, they can’t throw it out without also throwing out what the GOP is pushing for in CA. Or, if they try to throw it out, they’re going to need some expert level mental gymnastics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You are referring to Olympic level mental gymnasts FYI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    100%. The GOP is absolutely going to try to find some sort of silly reason why the two cases should be different.

    Probably something a stupid about disenfranchising more districts with in-n-out burgers, and the cups contain bible verses on them, so religious discrimination.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    California seems to have done it legally. Republicans have fought tooth and nail for decades to make gerrymandering legal. While I don't believe in gerrymandering, I'm not going to try and save them from the literal consequences of their attacks on democracy. Maybe now Republicans will finally understand why an independent districting body matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Block it everywhere, implement independent districting everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Isn't California's map dependent on the Texas one going into effect? That was the original wording at least back when it was first introduced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago*

    Isn’t California’s map dependent on the Texas one going into effect?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_California_Proposition_50

    The specific text of the Proposition is

    Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps in Response to Texas' Partisan Redistricting. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

    There is no trigger tied to any action by the Texas redistricting committee. However, prior to Democrats putting the amendment on the California ballot..

    On August 11, 2025, Newsom sent a letter to Donald Trump, stating that California would pause any mid-decade redistricting effort if other states called off their efforts. Two days later, Newsom announced that the deadline had passed and he would move forward with his own redistricting effort.

    Now that the law has passed with overwhelming support (64/35 on final count), the map that was drafted by the independent bipartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission is in effect going into 2026. This court decision has no effect on the California ballot amendment results or the enforcement of the new maps.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    It is stated to be in response to Texas, but the amended constitution as far as I can see doesn't use language about it being conditional on Texas' plan happening.

    In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025 (...) the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 (...) shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative

    It's just that the legislature's map shall be used for elections between the proposition's passage and 2031's regularly scheduled redistricting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Yes. CA is basically responding to neutralize Texas. Ditto with this case. The GOP is trying to sue to top CA’s neutralization effort, and they’re claiming that CA’s very political gerrymander is secretly racist. In response, Dems are basically issuing the exact same racial gerrymander case in TX.

    The one big difference is that CA’s voters are on record for supporting this. TX politicians are doing this without the consent of the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The verbiage in prop 50 that limited action based on Texas outcomes of implementing their maps was removed before Newsom's signature.

    For now, at least, California's actions will continue to move forward.

    I'd say don't count Texas out yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That’s kind of the point of this law suit. The dems have a Texas suit about racial gerrymandering, and the GOP has a suit in CA about racial gerrymandering.

    The point it’s to respond to Texas tit for tat. If TX gerrymanders, CA gerrymanders equivalently. Moreover, if the suit in Texas gets tossed by the SCOTUS, then the SCOTUS has an equivalent case in CA that will likely require an equivalent ruling.

    The point in CA is to counterbalance, not make gains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 6 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 18 points 1 year ago*

    It would be pretty funny if California's new map stood because they put it up for referendum but Texas's is shot down. Frankly, Democrats need to give back harder on bad behavior than they got, so I'd welcome it.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Will this ruling impact any other states? Or just Texas?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Have to look at each state on its own. This could be another ploy by the GOP however, to force another issue into the hands of SCOTUS, hoping for a new precedent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Idk that it's a ploy, but just a reality. The alternative would be judges approving the maps and ending it here.

    My hope is that it will be resolved far enough in advance of elections that Texas can't sneak something in last minutes, or at least not something this significant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Texas ruling gets applied to California, Texas appeals it, gets a stay to do it anyway pending appeal, California doesn't get the stay because the supreme court ruled that each jurisdiction applies only to itself, and by the time it all gets sorted it's irreversibly one sided and fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment