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.
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.
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.
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
“Oops we fucked democracy. Let’s do the bare minimum going forward.”
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.
It only works when the voters notice/care. If they did, the Republican Party would have died after GWB.
It also doesn’t work when a very large percentage of people desperately WANT you to go low.
It’s time constrained.
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 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.
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.
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!!
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?
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
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.
The change is time constrained. Anti gerrymandering laws go back into place.
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.
Laws are useless without consequences.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
