The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year’s midterm election, clearing the way for the state’s gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The state’s voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas’ new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House.
And in an unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court’s majority denied an emergency request by the California’s Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state’s GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.
I think this is really dangerous, actually. SCOTUS is no implicitly (or on their way to) saying that severe and perverse gerrymandering, is okay
They have already ruled that severe and perverse gerrymandering is okay. Only racist gerrymandering is technically illegal, but they recently made that acceptable, too. Burn it down and start over.
This was already legally happening in Texas. Cali did this in response to Texas being allowed to heavily gerrymander their state in Republican favor.
Editing to add: And it’s a time-constrained deal. This new map will only exist until 2030 when the maps would be redrawn anyhow. Cali put this up to a vote. Texas just…did it without a vote. Its near impossible for on-the-ground voters to get anything on a ballot in Texas due to the way the state Constitution is written.
i heard other blue states are doing the same too.
Exactly. As much of a leftist as I am, redrawing electoral maps on the basis of party advantage disenfranchises voters. It is antidemocratic and ethically wrong. California, where I am a registered Democrat, really fucked up here.
Aka the supreme court couldnt figure out how to argue this without making themselves look even more like clowns OR they have a plan B.
It’s both actually. The justices beholden to Trumpanzee were informed that the election will be stolen anyway and so the fallout from them “looking even more like clowns” wasn’t necessary.
they would have to admit that the GOP states are doing it unfairly, which they dont want to get on the news.
In guessing plan B. If California can use this democrat friendly slanted map then every other state can use whatever conservative slanted maps they draw up.
I think plan B is the ice agents at poking locations they announced today.
This is my exact take too. Opening the floodgates for ultra gerrymandered maps.
I don’t know enough about how all this works. Would it be possible for them to time in coordinated map changes, and outpace any kind of coordinated democratic response right before an election?
That’s one hell of an interesting twist.
Roberts and Gorsuch aren’t obsessed with winning every short-game match up. They need gerrymandering to be legal in the abstract and for the long term. If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.
In a wave year where Republicans are likely getting swamped out of dozens of seats anyway, there’s very little to gain and a lot to lose by creating an exception to the rule on when gerrymandering is legal.
If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.
The Roberts SCOTUS has already given any future SCOTUS ample precedent for utterly ignoring previous rulings as it suits their partisan needs several times over. If they think this one somehow stands separate from anything else it’s laughable.
I’m sure they have something worse up their sleeve, and this wasn’t worth the PR flak they’d catch.
Congratulations, you can use your maps!
On an unrelated note, your maps don’t matter, because we’re gonna let a pants-shitting child rapist cancel the elections as long as he says they’re “rigged.”
And even if he isn’t able to do that, just the simple fact that Republicans have dominated rural areas and have ton of states with almost zero population in their thrall means they have a lot more room to run up the scoreboard with map shenanigans. If gerrymandering is legal for everyone, that’s a net loss for the Dems.
There’s more potential in gerrymandering for Dems currently, as they’ve done less of it overall (outside of Maryland and a few others).
At the same time actually making gerrymandering illegal could start to impact current maps.
The former likely won’t matter much until 2032. The latter matters now. We all know they’re thinking in the short term.
I’m sure they’ll use this to justify flipping the Texas decision
I thought the Texas one was already permitted.
It it? I feel like anyone paying attention knew this is how it was going to go.
Heck, look at my post history. I offered 3:1 odds on this over a week ago.
This supreme court has some loons on it, but if you thought they were gonna rule against California here you haven’t been paying attention.
Nice of them to “allow” it. I thought the states were responsible for their own elections?
The question was more about the constitutionality behind how the map was decided. Republicans were arguing it was about race which is unconstitutional. You can only gerrymander to make a one party state… Which like… Wtf?
The think the race thing is one of the newer amendments, and the baseline is ‘states can draw the maps however they want’ because that’s what they needed to say to get the states on board with being a country in the first place
I’d hope this will bring us closer to real legal barriers to gerrymandering, if hope hadn’t been beaten out of me by now.
The weird thing is this CA law removed anti-gerrymandering laws. We had a legal barrier here in CA, but this law was to remove that barrier so we could counter TX. It sucked voting for it.
Yeah this was definitely a race for the bottom, but unfortunately a necessary one. Michelle Obama’s idea of “when they go low, we go high” only works if your opponent has a miniscule amount of morals or shame.
Michelle Obama’s idea of “when they go low, we go high” only works if
your opponent hasvoters have a miniscule amount of morals or shame.FTFY
It only works when the voters notice/care. If they did, the Republican Party would have died after GWB.
What about all the WMDs we found in Iraq though?
It also doesn’t work when a very large percentage of people desperately WANT you to go low.
From what I’ve read the barrier wasn’t actually removed, so much as putting it on pause for a time. This map will only be in place until 2030 when the maps were going to be redrawn anyway, at which point the new map will be created using the standard anti-gerrymandering method.
It’s time constrained.
It’s not weird if you start with the premise of Democrats being just as dirty and underhanded as Republicans. Both these private organizations benefit from this. The people, not so much.
It’s weird because Dems have been the ones making all the anti gerrymandering laws lmao
Takes a very low iq to understand both sides being the same
DON’T VOTE BLUE. DONT VOTE BLUE. DONT VOTE BLUE.
Oh, is that not subtle enough? Sorry, I meant BOTH SIDES and EVERYTHING REPUBLICANS DO IS THE DEMS FAULT.
I hope that last one wasn’t too long. Was it bad to mention Republicans at all?
Of course because it’s good PR, and then later when they don’t want to be constricted by such rules, they just write new laws to nullify it.
The result is effectively the same as if they’d never passed these anti-gerrymandering laws in the first place, yet the sycophants eat this stuff up despite getting absolutely nothing from it.
Don’t forget that the Texas legislature was only able to gerrymander due to Texas Dems showing up and giving them a quorum.
Dirty and underhanded? Sure. “Just as” dirty and underhanded? No.
The world is not black and white. People are not either pure or utterly corrupt. Everything is a spectrum, everything a matter of degree.
Agreed. The instant pivot to “both-sides-ism” by so many people is a big part of the reason we are where we are today. Always mentioning D politicians in the same breath whenever the R politicians corruption or crime is discussed (when said Rs are many orders of magnitude worse) is the textbook definition.
Interesting that you want to argue that the world isn’t black and white while arguing that simple party affiliation determines whether someone deserves sympathy or villification for the same action.
This is a very “only the Sith deal in absolutes!” type of statement.
The truth is that people are just desperately clinging to the idea that Democrats winning an election will solve all our problems despite all the evidence to the contrary. They’ve proven time and time again that they are completely fine with “the status quo” because they benefit from all this turmoil just as much as Republicans do. They will not be our saviors no matter how badly people want to believe it.
Interesting that you want to argue that the world isn’t black and white while arguing that simple party affiliation determines whether someone deserves sympathy or villification for the same action.
This is a very “only the Sith deal in absolutes!” type of statement.
Nonsense. No one is arguing that “simple party affiliation” is what makes gerrymandering okay.
California’s law specifically triggered only if Texas went through with their proposed gerrymander. It also has an expiration date following the 2030 census, at which point the California Citizens Redistricting Commission will resume their duties.
Please tell me you realize these are not the same. If you cannot see the difference, you are either a zealot or arguing in poor faith.
You’re arguing that people are more dirty and underhanded if they’re Republican which completely contradicts your earlier statement about things not being “black and white.”
And yes, you and many others are arguing that it’s okay because it helps Democrats whether you want to admit (or even realize) that this is the root of your argument or not.
California’s law specifically triggered only if Texas went through with their proposed gerrymander.
Which was only possible due to state Democrats showing up to the Texas legislature and giving the Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the vote. There’s no “only if” when the outcome was a foregone conclusion. This is just slimy language to put the onus on Republicans for what’s happening despite them being unable to do it without the assistance of Democrats.
also has an expiration date following the 2030 census, at which point the California Citizens Redistricting Commission will resume their duties.
So “bad deeds” today with the promise that things will be “put right” at some point far into the future? I can’t believe people can’t see through bullshit like this by now as politicians use this tactic constantly. It should be Chuck Schumer’s catch phrase by now.
Please tell me you realize these are not the same. If you cannot see the difference, you are either a zealot or arguing in poor faith.
If there’s such a stark and obvious difference, why is your whole argument based on faith and subjectivity? Faith they’ll make it right in the future. Belief that they’re the good guys, so they’re doing it for a ‘good’ reason. You want to argue that things aren’t black and white and it’s not about party affiliation yet that’s exactly what “the difference” appears to be. Where’s the objectivity?
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released this statement after the Supreme Court handed down an opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, which deals with the constitutionality of and judicial role in partisan gerrymandering:
"The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes at the very heart of our American democracy. As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, the Court’s role in our system of government ‘is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.’
"This ruling greenlights the unjust and deeply dangerous practice of gerrymandering, which robs Americans of their right to have an equal voice in their government. Traditionally underserved communities, especially communities of color, risk losing the representation and resources they rightfully deserve.
“The Congress must act. This year, the Democratic Majority passed H.R. 1, the For The People Act, which works to end to partisan gerrymandering by requiring all states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw open and transparent statewide district maps after each Census. We will continue to fight partisan gerrymandering, ensure every citizen’s vote counts and oppose any attempt to compromise the integrity of our democracy.”
Do you agree that gerrymandering is unjust and deeply dangerous to democracy, robbing people of their right to have an equal voice or is that only true when Republicans do it? Democrats had the power to stop this in Texas before it ever happened, yet they chose to not only aid Republicans in their quest to gerrymander but also engage in it themselves. This is why I don’t see any difference.
Democrats vote for something that should not benefit them and benefits the people as a whole. Republicans do something that makes a change necessary. Democrats vote to TEMPORARILY undo that benefit for the people with a time-based reenacting of the benefit.
You: BOTH SIDES!!
Democrats try to vote for ranked choice voting in some states. Republicans push to outlaw that for the entire country.
You: BOTH SIDES!!
Indeed. 40 years ago bothsidesism could have been an intellectually honest take. If you are doing it today, you are either very stupid or nothing more than a concern troll.
Its funny you menting RCV because that was on the ballot here in Oregon last election and it failed by a 15 point margin because it got little support outside of citizen-lead efforts. State Dems of course want credit for putting it on the ballot despite abandoning their efforts after that and allowing disinformation to run rampant in the weeks and months leading up to election day. Dems have controlled the state for generations now, so why change a system that works for them?
The change is time constrained. Anti gerrymandering laws go back into place.
Is it because they know there will be no elections?
“Oops we fucked democracy. Let’s do the bare minimum going forward.”
Hey - maybe this shouldn’t be legal at all? Why is neither party proposing an amendment outlawing this?
The GOP will never support clean cut voting laws, they have to manipulate the votes to win anything they haven’t had the numbers to win an election since Nixon. That’s the reason our voting laws are convoluted in the first place.
There isnt any need for a constituonal amendment to stop gerrymandering. A simple act of Congress will do it
And, to be absolutely clear, nothing less than an act of Congress will stop it nationwide. And any anti-gerrymandering measure that isn’t nationwide is an endorsement of partisan gerrymandering in red states.
I don’t see how an act of Congress could do it for the same legal reasons Trump can’t “nationalize” elections, and the same reason I believe the supreme Court upheld this.
The States have the right to organize how votes are performed, but no one in the U.S. has a right to vote in reality. They have a right to not be discriminated against during voting.
Let’s say Florida decided they won’t have a popular vote for president and the currently elected representatives vote on the electors.
Every person in Florida just lost their right to vote, but they did not discriminate in doing so, and it could be legal. The residents would have to be pissed at their State government for allowing such a vote to pass… But federally, it could be constitutional.
Gerrymander remapping has been deemed unconstitutional in other states specifically because they were trying to manipulate representation of certain races to change the results.
Amendments need 3/4 of the states to ratify. And good luck getting enough of the partisan controlled State governments to agree to that
So, this CA law is removing the anti-gerrymandering legislation that CA Democrats got enacted. The Democrats proposed a state-wide initiative to stop gerrymandering. It won, and we were all happy. Now we have to remove that legislation because Republicans in other states are going the other direction.
If you think getting 20 Republican governors to sign up for a Constitutional amendment that will destroy the chances of a Republican majority US House is a doable do, then I have a bridge to sell you. The thing is, even proposing it would cost the taxpayers million in all the logistical crap that would happen to have a vote for something guaranteed to fail.
Why is neither party proposing an amendment outlawing this?
Proposals have been made.
But the majority party rarely sees an incentive to change the rules they won under. And a minority party never has the votes to overturn a majority-written set of maps.
Laws are useless without consequences.
Because it already exists. This is a temporary law.
Where’s all those naysayers who said the court wasn’t going to let CA do this?
The court may be right leaning, the court may be infiltrated by corruption and lobbying, the court may have an old doucher who dick don’t work and will take RVs as bribes… But c’mon, they still like to keep things interesting.
Now get out there and fucking vote for someone other than what the DNC tells you to.
They’ve fallen back to “well it doesn’t matter anyway because elections will be canceled.”
With all ramping up of the attempts to steal state voter roles (ie ICE will leave if you hand over voter rolls), actually stealing 2020 ballots from Georgia, and calling to nationalize the election it’s almost like they knew this was coming. Weird.
With a heavy dose of “See! Both parties really are the same!”
