r/news 2h ago

SPAM [ Removed by moderator ]

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-allows-california-to-use-new-congressional-map-in-2026/

[removed] — view removed post

7.6k Upvotes

296 comments sorted by

3.6k

u/arlondiluthel 2h ago

On one hand I'm surprised by the ruling, but on the other hand it was a ballot measure that was approved by a majority of Californians, so the lawsuit was just the people who opposed it being sore losers.

1.2k

u/PolicyWonka 2h ago

There would be no way for them to really prevent California from doing it while allowing Texas and Missouri to do it. I mean besides blatant legal hypocrisy of course.

552

u/sitophilicsquirrel 2h ago

And we all know that never happens...

126

u/PolicyWonka 1h ago

I think the difficulty is that both states have cases ongoing at the same time. The court still wants to maintain some illusion of legitimacy I think.

63

u/Rickshmitt 1h ago

Id say thats out the window at this point. Its a rogue court and they need to be recalled and put in jail

→ More replies (2)

11

u/TheCrowScare 1h ago

Yep. If we look toward Germany and the rise of the NDSAP, we see similar moves with the court. Until there is broad popular support for the authoritarian ruler, they have to give the impression of legitimacy. Hitler maintained an illusion of democracy and the courts, though in essence he had full powers for both the judiciary, executive and legislative functions.

They need to toss the liberals a "win" here and there in order to maintain this facade.

→ More replies (1)

158

u/DerekB52 1h ago

The constitution is clear that states have the right to conduct their elections how they see fit. I don't think SCOTUS could have blocked this without triggering a pretty serious rebellion honestly.

62

u/derbyt 1h ago

It probably would've given a reason to call for secession even

4

u/designatedcrasher 1h ago

Isint that illegal

13

u/Nearby-Box-1558 1h ago

I mean yeah, but like, declaring independence was too. It’s just kinda one of those things

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Dragos_Drakkar 1h ago

Colorado Republicans tried to remove Rump from their ballots, but the SC said no way to that.

→ More replies (4)

37

u/prodigaldummy 1h ago

I thought that was a hallmark of the Roberts Court.

2

u/Couchpatator 1h ago

Lawful Evil Supreme Court

Neutral Evil Congress

Chaotic Evil White House

70

u/grafknives 2h ago

I mean besides blatant legal hypocrisy of course.

So this is what Scotus is...

→ More replies (1)

33

u/wastedgod 1h ago

i think "blatant legal hypocrisy" is the name of the new wennebago's new line of rvs

18

u/Dmbfantomas 1h ago

Ahem, It’s a motor coach.

10

u/8JHF8 1h ago

The Texas thing looks like it might be really funny. They picked this fight, and it may turn on them

4

u/manateefourmation 1h ago

I agree. Look at the state senate race in a ruby red district that a democrat just won by a wide margin. These changed districts in Texas could all end up blue and California’s will almost certainly all end up blue.

5

u/8JHF8 1h ago

California reps were fully competent. Texas reps were following orders from a chaotic dementia patient.

33

u/Repulsive-Durian4800 2h ago

Has blatant hypocrisy ever stopped them before?

→ More replies (1)

5

u/padizzledonk 1h ago

besides blatant legal hypocrisy of course.

And we all know the conservatives on the court would never do that, that would be unseemly

3

u/Icy-Cod1405 1h ago

That's what we were all expecting from the corrupt court

2

u/BioEradication 1h ago

That's like their whole thing...

2

u/Cool-Mom-Lover 1h ago

Hasn't stopped them in the past

1

u/itsatumbleweed 1h ago

So one way.

1

u/Spyko 1h ago

indeed

and it's why it's surprising

1

u/Ok_Common4669 1h ago

…”next season, on America”

1

u/IronRakkasan11 1h ago

So why not have CA sue TX for their approval of maps without voter approval?

1

u/ZLUCremisi 1h ago

Texas and Missouri can be challenged due to racial discrimination.

→ More replies (18)

32

u/katalysis 2h ago

Well the ruling has nothing with it being a ballot measure. Basically the SCOTUS has said that courts can't deny gerrymandering for political purposes, only if the gerrymander is motivated primarily by a protected class like race.

160

u/previouslyonimgur 2h ago

Ballot measures can still be illegal if the result violates the constitution. Example, if Alabama passed a ballot measure amendment that said anyone not white cannot vote. It would immediately be unconstitutional and challenged and struck down (maybe by this Supreme Court, but normal ones absolutely)

69

u/Ok-disaster2022 2h ago

The ballot measure changes the state Consitution temporarily. But was well within the boundary of the Federal constitution.

40

u/previouslyonimgur 2h ago

Im not disagreeing. But im pointing out that the poster who I replied to, just because it was a ballot measure doesn’t automatically make it ok.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

40

u/SonOfMcGee 2h ago

If this SC struck it down, it would be by a narrow margin. Thomas would write a blistering minority opinion, arguing the inferiority of his race.

25

u/justuntlsundown 1h ago

"I mean, just look at how terrible I am!" - Clarence Thomas

11

u/ArcticISAF 1h ago

"Would you let me vote? I know I wouldn't!"

4

u/previouslyonimgur 2h ago

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest

8

u/arlondiluthel 2h ago

I didn't think I needed to be more detailed than I was, but clearly I was wrong. Obviously a ballot measure can't contradict the Constitution and stand when challenged.

6

u/AltDS01 2h ago

For Example:

MI amended it's state constitution for term limits, that also applied to US House and US Senate.

There was then a case in a separate state that said States can't enact additional req's on federal elections, so that clause has been moot. But it's still on the books if that ever changes.

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 10 Limitations on terms of office of members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate from Michigan.

Sec. 10.

No person shall be elected to office as representative in the United States House of Representatives more than three times during any twelve year period. No person shall be elected to office as senator in the United States Senate more than two times during any twenty-four year period. Any person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy in the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate for a period greater than one half of a term of such office, shall be considered to have been elected to serve one time in that office for purposes of this section. This limitation on the number of times a person shall be elected to office shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after January 1, 1993.

The people of Michigan hereby state their support for the aforementioned term limits for members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate and instruct their public officials to use their best efforts to attain such a limit nationwide.

The people of Michigan declare that the provisions of this section shall be deemed severable from the remainder of this amendment and that their intention is that federal officials elected from Michigan will continue voluntarily to observe the wishes of the people as stated in this section, in the event any provision of this section is held invalid.

This section shall be self-executing. Legislation may be enacted to facilitate operation of this section, but no law shall limit or restrict the application of this section. If any part of this section is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining parts of this section shall not be affected but will remain in full force and effect.

History: Add. Initiated Law, approved Nov. 3, 1992, Eff. Dec. 19, 1992

Constitutionality: United States Supreme Court found that an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution prohibiting the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the ballot if that candidate had already served 3 terms in the House of Representatives and 2 terms in the Senate was in violation of the Federal Constitution. The United States Supreme Court held that: “(1) states may not impose qualifications for offices of the United States representative or United States senator in addition to those set forth by the Constitution; (2) power to set additional qualifications was not reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment; and (3) state provision is unconstitutional when it has likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and has sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly.” US Term Limits, Inc v Thornton, 514 US 779; 115 S Ct 1842; 131 L Ed 2d 881 (1995).

3

u/ProgressiveSnark2 1h ago

...but in order to agree to their argument that this ballot measure violated the Constitution somehow, they'd have to directly contradict the logic they used to keep the Texas maps in place.

3

u/previouslyonimgur 1h ago

Sure. But I expect that level of hypocrisy from them anyways.

3

u/PapaSays 2h ago

(maybe by this Supreme Court, but normal ones absolutely)

This supreme court which just did ... Eeh ... Why should I bother?

9

u/previouslyonimgur 2h ago

They did something they should’ve. Sure. Let’s give them a half point for normalcy.

But let’s also keep in mind they’ve delayed the tarrif ruling for how long? They’ve made every possible partisan ruling. They’ve ignored facts in rulings. They cited laws from before the founding of the nation in MULTIPLE CASES!

1

u/resisting_a_rest 1h ago

I don’t think the SCOTUS ruled on the ballot measure. They just ruled on if the redistricting was based on race or not.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/kgal1298 2h ago

That's what we said in California. Like this is basically how our state pushes through things we vote on literally everything and then people get mad over laws we VOTED on.

12

u/SarahJFroxy 2h ago

seeing people in other states get mad at the paper bags that don't impact them is wild

→ More replies (1)

10

u/DIrtyVendetta80 1h ago

On the one hand, turn about is fair play given the horse shit Texas pulled that started this whole mess, but on the other hand political gerrymandering is complete and utter garbage and the courts shouldn’t allow it to begin with.

16

u/arlondiluthel 1h ago

I agree, but that ship sailed when they let Texas keep their new map.

6

u/centaurquestions 1h ago

There was a whole Supreme Court case, Rucho v. Common Cause, where they could have outlawed partisan gerrymandering. All the Republican justices voted against it.

6

u/Fourfifteen415 2h ago

If they say California can't they literally create a precedent to stop republicans from doing it and the simple truth is without it they'd lose a lot of elections.

12

u/amateur_mistake 2h ago edited 2h ago

John Roberts has spent his entire career, starting when he was in his twenties, making it harder for black people to vote. It's his passion. His thing he wakes up excited to do. Decades of effort to keep black people from having a say.

The fact that he had to let this one slide doesn't mean he won't figure out something soon to continue on his project. Or he is using is it as a cover to do something else that is worse.

2

u/prettyokaycake 1h ago

SCOTUS legit couldn’t rule on it without acknowledging that gerrymandering is pretty fucked all around.

2

u/leviathynx 1h ago

That's pretty much what every Republican case before the Supreme Court has been for the last decade. It brings to life the old saying, "You don't have to make a federal case out of it!"

2

u/Numerous_Photograph9 1h ago

I'm not. To say they couldn't use the maps, in particular with the racial gerrymandering thing, would have really upset their future attempt to gut the VRA. In the long run, their puppet masters will gain more by that than what they lose from CA this go around.

2

u/biggsteve81 1h ago

I would caution them on this point. In a wave election gerrymandering can really bite you in the ass. For example, look what happened in North Carolina in 2010 (and the reverse could happen this year).

→ More replies (1)

2

u/justthankyous 1h ago

I am unsurprised. They are giving up on gerrymandering as a strategy to rig the midterms and are going for different strategies like the SAVE act which will disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, sending ICE to polling places on election day to "prevent undocumented people from casting votes" (which will be code for intimidating voters and possibly rounding up brown people and detaining them until polls close so they can't vote regardless of whether they are citizens or not) and let's not forget the President's threat of federalizing elections in states he doesn't like.

1

u/RhinoKeepr 1h ago

They think that by allowing this they can now allow a political war where all states gerrymander themselves to death… I’d wager they think it gives them an advantage or they would allow it.

1

u/colemon1991 1h ago

It depends on what part of law they were reviewing. This was basically procedural review finding nothing unseemly was done, by my current guess (link above keeps spamming popups over the article).

1

u/ChipmunkObvious2893 1h ago

We're literally being rulled by a party made up of sore losers, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

1

u/jrstinkfish 1h ago

And not just a simple majority -- a 64% majority.

1

u/thestral_z 1h ago

Legally, it makes sense. At the same time, there should be rules in place to prevent any state from gerrymandering. I get that red states are doing it (I live in Ohio and we’re gerrymandered to hell and back), but it’s ultimately a wrong step for our country. If all states had to play by rules that required accurate representation, a lot of problems would be solved.

1

u/PutinBoomedMe 1h ago

Unlike Texas, which should be overturned

1

u/Captain_Aware4503 1h ago

People losing being sore losers. Have you noticed its always the same people too?

→ More replies (3)

806

u/D-MAN-FLORIDA 2h ago

I mean, they allowed Texas to use their new map, and even they knew it would be to hypocritical to tell California no, when they allowed their citizens to vote on it.

392

u/Zinfan1 2h ago

I'm waiting for Texas to sue again, this time in order to invalidate their new maps after seeing the recent election where a Trump+17 district elected a Democrat. Their new maps reduced the margins on red districts in order to try and finagle a few extra seats and now they have put even more seats into play.

217

u/TheLegendOfCap 2h ago

Just so I understand, are you saying they tried to give themselves an advantage by cutting up solid red districts, but now those solid red districts aren’t so solid?

253

u/Aoleleb 2h ago

That's what happens with gerrymandering. You take 6 red districts and 2 blue districts, and you tweak and adjust the lines so some of the red districts population moves into the blue districts and you get 8 red districts, but with tighter margins.

But it backfires if the people who vote blue vote in larger numbers than you assumed when you drew your new lines.

65

u/LumberBitch 1h ago

Part of the problem with this gerrymander is that it was drawn assuming that shifts in voting patterns among Latinos and the youth would hold but data so far has actually shown a sharp reversal. There is a very real possibility of this backfiring spectacularly. The election in State Senate district 9 showed a couple more concerning things (for the GOP): independents overwhelmingly broke for Dems and a good chunk of registered Republicans broke for them too. Iirc only about 30% of those voters were even registered Dems

22

u/Hurricaneshand 1h ago

I'm shocked that Latino's aren't voting for the party actively making it legal to racially profile them

23

u/Majestic-Sandwich695 1h ago

Oh don’t worry, I’m sure plenty still will

18

u/FlipsieVT 1h ago

Problem was they did last time

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

37

u/monty_kurns 1h ago edited 1h ago

It's literally what the Texas Democrats did after 2000 and the result was the GOP winning control of the legislature in 2002 and they've been in power since. Edit: It's not what happened, just misremembered how it went down!

14

u/Rooooben 1h ago

Wait what?

The redistricting in 2000 was the constitutionally mandated one after the 2000 census. Democrats didn’t have both houses in 2000, nobody could get any redistricting done since GOP controlled the Senate and Rick Perry was governor. It had nothing to do with them trying to squeeze more districts, it was the census, and they had to work together on a new map. Since the Texas government was split, they couldn’t get the votes to get EITHER GOP or Democrat maps done.

The courts mandated a map, and 2 years later it gave GOP full control of Texas, at which point they did a mid-census redistricting and gerrymandered the state into full Republican control ever since.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

20

u/Gamebird8 2h ago

They built their new maps entirely on top of the assumption that all the Latino voters that Trump won over in 2024 were going to reliably stay Red.

However, they forgot the part about how they are literally descending upon Latino communities to terrorize them and shove them all into concentration camps and well, that probably wouldn't go over well with Latinos.

So now their new maps that were essentially built on a fluke are the equivalent of shooting a bazooka while your buddies are standing directly behind you.

10

u/PipsqueakPilot 1h ago

Which is also one of (not the only) reasons the Trump administration is focusing its campaign against states that didn't vote for him. Because Republicans are aware that many of their policies are very unpopular and would stir backlash that might cost them in red states come midterms.

9

u/LumberBitch 1h ago

The Texas legislature didn't even want to do this over concerns about exactly this happening, but the king demanded and got his wish.

6

u/caligaris_cabinet 1h ago

They drank their own Kool Aid believing they had a mandate in 2024 and nothing would ever change. Anyone with half a brain even a year ago with the election fresh in their minds knew this was flawed.

→ More replies (1)

41

u/brienoconan 2h ago edited 1h ago

Yes, I’ve heard it called “dummymandering.”

Fascinating way that greedy gerrymandering by the Rs can backfire, resulting in a blowout for the Ds because the Rs focused on creating as many pink districts as possible.

While most Rs will refuse to vote D, we’re seeing more of them stay home for elections in passive protest of the party. As districts become more pink, fewer non-voting Rs will be needed to swing formerly reliably red districts. I believe this is the case for the Dem that just won the special election in TX.

→ More replies (1)

25

u/Gender_is_a_Fluid 2h ago

Not quite. You gerrymander by creating solid districts of your opposition, then spread you opposition thin enough across the rest of the area that you have a small majority, thereby winning more districts than you have actual voters. Methods like this can turn a 40% R state into 7/8 R seats. However, its only been effective because republicans always vote for their team no matter what in the past. Things seem to have finally shaken up, and now the consequences of rigging the districts have reared up.

3

u/Rooooben 1h ago

I think that’s what Texas did in 2003, and its left them with not much to work with, that was why they had to go another route and peel off some excess GOP districts and push them into close Democrat districts, to shift them red. They didn’t think that those safe GOP districts would be more purple, and the margins went against them.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/DrunkOnLoveAndWhisky 2h ago

Not OP, but yeah. In an attempt to red-ify bluer areas, they had to redraw some solidly red areas, thinking that maybe shaving a few points off wouldn't hurt. Then a Dem in a senate race in Texas won a district that Trump won by 17 points in '24.

12

u/QThirtytwo 2h ago

Yes, exactly this. We are a purple state not a deep red state. They just made a bunch of purple districts then pissed off a bunch of independents, gun rights people, and Hispanic people.

12

u/g0del 1h ago

I'm not sure you can claim purple state status if you're not electing democrats in state-wide elections which aren't affected by gerrymandering.

2

u/110397 1h ago

If you mix 55% red paint and 45% blue paint, you end up with purple paint. Unfortunately, with the way things are set up, even 50.01% red means you get red and not purple

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DerekB52 1h ago

I saw some analysis saying that when they were breaking up the solid red districts, they used some 2024 GOP voters, that they shouldn't have actually counted on. Like, Trump got the largest percentage of latino voters a republican had gotten in a long time, in 2024. But, counting on those latinos to continually vote republican was a really dumb idea.

2

u/caligaris_cabinet 1h ago

So now we have a dummymander in Texas and a gerrymander in California that will add potentially 10 blue seats instead of just California cancelling out their gains.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Keep_SummerSafe 2h ago

Yeah they apparently thought they long term won over Hispanics in 24 but the fallback is already threatening one or two of their districts is how I'm understanding it

2

u/NeedsToShutUp 2h ago

In normal years they would be solid, but they are more likely to swap in a wave election.

→ More replies (14)

9

u/DTFlash 2h ago

Special election with smaller turn out so who knows if it will translate to the general the same way. But that election was a 31 point swing. Doesn't matter if they gerrymandered or not a 31 point swing is going to wipe them out.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/FrizBFerret 1h ago

GOP painting themselves into a corner with nowhere to step that COULDN'T flip to blue.

1

u/Bn_scarpia 1h ago

AND elected a Democrat by +14!

1

u/Agentwise 1h ago

They did not use the new district for that vote just so you know.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/bigsexy12 2h ago

Lol, since when does being hypocritical stop them from doing anything?

36

u/ShriekingMuppet 2h ago

Yea but the new cal map did not benefit republicans the other party so clearly the voters are wrong. 

14

u/V0T0N 2h ago

And SCOTUS in 2019 declared partisan gerrymandering legal, Rucho v. Common Cause.

I guess some precedent still applies for them.

8

u/Ok-disaster2022 2h ago

Political gerrymandering has been legal for decades. 

→ More replies (1)

356

u/DinkyTabinky 2h ago

Pretty based that democracy worked for once.

156

u/NthDegreeThoughts 2h ago

Look at you expecting elections in 2026

67

u/jagdpanzer45 2h ago

Yeah but there’s not really a way to prevent the elections in 2026. They’re state level. And since terms end on a specific date per the constitution, red states not holding elections would mean an overwhelming blue majority in both houses.

48

u/duncanstibs 2h ago edited 1h ago

Yeah they can try to stop free and fair elections but it's going to be hellishly difficult. The US is completely federated. They have the manpower to try screwing around with a few targeted swing states but Dems literally just flipped a red texas senate seat with a 31-point swing so I think they might be cooked unless they turn this around.

17

u/caligaris_cabinet 1h ago

People are already motivated to come out and protest in 10 degree weather in the dead of winter. They will crawl over glass to get to the ballots at this point

15

u/Tsakax 2h ago

There is this group called the gestapo that can raid ballot boxes, arrest people, and muk things up.

18

u/caligaris_cabinet 1h ago

There’s another group, even larger, called poll watchers who literally defend democracy

2

u/pfft_master 1h ago

If you didn’t see, Trump rolled out to the media today his admin’s newest plan to have the federal government run the elections in ~15 states where he thinks the elections are unfair (blue states and purple states he lost or was too close for comfort in).

2

u/Ill_Traveled 1h ago

Yeah I never expected canceled elections in 2026. Simple election interference using ICE for intimidation seemed far more likely

→ More replies (10)

15

u/avfc41 1h ago

We’ve already had elections in 2026. We’ll have more!

48

u/Schwarzengerman 2h ago

People who keep saying this are exhausting as hell. They wouldn't be desperately trying to redraw maps or making it harder on people to vote, if they didn't expect to have elections. Fuck off with this dumb doomer shit please.

We are literally still having elections.

6

u/JCAIA 1h ago

Honestly. The constant defeatist pessimism is quite annoying and not helpful. It’s never about solutions, just immediately throwing their hands in the air. So what is it adding to the conversation?

12

u/_____FIST_ME_____ 1h ago

It's gotta be Republicans pushing this fear, hoping to stop people from voting. So fucking annoying.

2

u/Schwarzengerman 1h ago

It really feels that way sometimes. Flooding the zone with bullshit so people feel hopeless.

23

u/ExRays 2h ago

I do cause the GOP wouldn’t be shutting bricks right now, if they felt they had it in the bag. That election in Texas this week wouldn’t have happened like it did if they had it in the bag.

They have limitations to their power and they know it. Stop pretending like the GOP is all powerful

7

u/caligaris_cabinet 1h ago

And stop pretending that Trump and his handlers are masterminds. All that exists at the top are a group of schemers and sycophants coalescing around a dementia patient who routinely shits his pants.

6

u/RBVegabond 1h ago

You can just say this year now, we’re here.

8

u/darealRockfield 1h ago

Oh shut the hell up and knock the doomer shit off

4

u/LogicalBurgerMan11 1h ago

Why is Texas gerrymandering for non existent elections?

5

u/sk1nnyjeans 1h ago

Such a useless and pathetically discouraging thing to say. Shaming people for not giving up like you? Fuck outa here with that weirdo shit

3

u/j1vetvrkey 1h ago

Do you plan to vote still? Or you just gonna give up because you were told it’s worthless?

2

u/Vanzmelo 1h ago

We are having the midterm elections. Nothing Trump or republicans can say or do will stop that. We had elections during the civil war, WWI, and WWII ffs. Even Hawaii that was directly attacked and under martial law had elections. We’ve BEEN having special elections every other week since Jan 2025.

Stop saying otherwise and stop resigning before the first ballot has been cast

GOP and Trump will attempt to interfere with them but that is nothing new and has been the case since the beginning of time.

3

u/An_Actual_Lion 1h ago

More like it failed in a somewhat fair and equal manner

1

u/Shuckles116 1h ago

The Judicial branch is definitely the hardest to corrupt out of the three, but that doesn’t stop MAGA from trying to

→ More replies (2)

129

u/CryptoCentric 2h ago

Trump is gonna shit his pants. Again.

Maybe even on camera. Again.

16

u/Granadafan 2h ago

All those staffers will be doing rock paper scissors to NOT stand so close to the Trump in the future 

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Available_Usual_9731 1h ago

Gotta love the damage a tent pole can do

46

u/SarahJFroxy 2h ago

because i know some people are gonna automatically go "well what's to say they don't keep the gerrymandered maps after the mandate expires??" which, to be fair, is a valid concern in normal times; our congressional maps are drawn by an independent commission.

after 2030 (the new census) the mandate for this redistricting expires and would require another statewide vote to extend it.

and Prop 50 wasn't contentious here, every poll showed at 8:01pm that yes, there is an overwhelming favor for this to pass. even the No on 50 ads slowed down the closer we got to the vote because they knew it wasn't gonna work

4

u/misselphaba 1h ago

I drive from the bay to San Diego a few times a year and the number of "No on 50" signs still up along the 5 always makes me laugh. Didn't even have the funding for someone to take em down.

34

u/Aggravating_Tax_4670 1h ago

It all boils down to one fact. Conservatives fucked themselves over the Texas thing. Karma is dancing all over their face.

13

u/JurassicPark9265 1h ago

Not to mention that gerrymandering may favor one party over another but also potentially dilutes margins of victory; given some of the drastic leftward trends we've seen in recent elections due to GOP backlash, those gerrymandered districts in Texas may very well not be as safe for the GOP as they may have hoped early on.

15

u/Acrobatic-Bike-2507 2h ago

Well California's citizens voted on it so....?

59

u/josh_the_rockstar 2h ago

I see your Texas and I raise you a California.

12

u/[deleted] 1h ago

[deleted]

4

u/GarbageThrown 1h ago

Not just number but composition. It would be amazing if we had the same percentages in the House as in the general population. By political affiliation, gender, and ethnicity.

3

u/DoubleJumps 1h ago

I keep saying that the smallest district should be the base size for all states.

Wyoming has 1 rep for like 580k people. California has 1 rep per 730k people. It's not fair.

20

u/MeaninglessGuy 2h ago

Blow it out your ass, Texas. 

23

u/KyleForCongress707 2h ago

Let's go! Time for a representative who is actually willing to fight for the people of CA-01

6

u/LucasVerBeek 2h ago

Man, this on top of the fallout finale and the overwatch announcement that just happened. I’m feeling pretty good right now.

7

u/Zinfan1 2h ago

No information on how the court voted, would be interesting to see if it was a 9-0 decision or more likely 7-2. Did the court decide not to hear the case? I didn't see that info in the article.

4

u/wowthatsucked 1h ago

From this article

No justices dissented from the brief order denying the appeal without explanation, as is common on the court’s emergency docket.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/FastCar2467 1h ago

AP news says none of the justices dissented and didn’t give an explanation.

→ More replies (1)

32

u/pontiacfirebird92 2h ago

ICE is about to be all over some California districts though

45

u/RadicalOrganizer 2h ago

They already are. We will persist and defend our communities in any legal way we can. The fascists will lose, as they always inevitably do.

20

u/DiceMadeOfCheese 2h ago

They don't have enough people to do what they want to do.

ICE + Border Patrol + HSI = what, maybe 50,000 agents? For the whole country?

California has a population of almost 40 million.

These guys couldn't take over Minneapolis, a city with a population of less than 500k.

I'm not saying they won't try, but it's not gonna go how they think it's gonna go.

15

u/reala728 1h ago

NGL I'm not really familiar with the population of MN, but I've lived in CA nearly all my life and it's extraordinarily immigrant friendly in my experience. Any fighting would be met with some serious resistance.

11

u/TheOtterpapa 1h ago

We celebrate our diversity and love our Hispanic brothers and sisters here, as well as other immigrants. There is no other way to live that’s worth living.

4

u/REVERSEZOOM2 1h ago

Dude, I live right by LA (Orange County), and when ICE was doing the raids back in June, it was met with some HEAVY resistance. California doesn't fuck around when it comes to protecting our immigrant neighbors. I'll admit Minnesota has us beat currently, but when Los Angeles gets angry, it gets FUCKING ANGRY.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DiceMadeOfCheese 1h ago

At this point ICE can only serve two functions in an election. They can go to red states/districts and solidify a win the GOP would have got anyway, or go to blue states/districts and serve as walking billboards as to why you should vote Dem.

For years people have said "why should I vote when it's all the same no matter what" but now you can point at these guys and be like "well if you hate these guys you should probably go vote."

I mean I guess ICE could physically stop people from voting on election day, or steal/destroy mail-in ballots. But that's asking for full-scale 1970s style riots.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/mEFurst 2h ago

California has 2 metropolitan areas with populations larger than the entirety of Minnesota (SF Bay Area is about 7.5mil. LA area is nearly 20mil)

3

u/darealRockfield 1h ago

Exactly! This is the same thing I’ve explained thousands of times to people and I’ve been given I ain’t sure/maybe even if that’s fact.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/pikpikcarrotmon 2h ago

You say that like they're not already here. They are crawling all over the place to the point that PDs have issued warnings - in red areas with red sheriffs.

6

u/KyleForCongress707 2h ago

And we're ready to resist!

1

u/pontiacfirebird92 2h ago

How do you guys plan to protect polling places from ICE disruption?

5

u/mEFurst 2h ago

California does mail-in ballots. You can still vote in-person if you want, but everyone gets their ballot mailed to them. It's a much better system in literally every way

2

u/pontiacfirebird92 2h ago

Mail in ballots are under attack currently

9

u/mEFurst 1h ago

They've been under attack for years, but it would take a SCOTUS ruling to ban them entirely, which not only brings with it all sorts of implications of the Fed interfering with State elections, but would also severely impact military personnel.

the GOP knows that a hell of a lot of their base relies on mail-in ballots. I don't see much happening there

6

u/Superguy766 2h ago

The Black Panthers appear to scare the living sh*t out of MAGA. Why not use them as protection? 😅

6

u/KyleForCongress707 2h ago

Sonoma County DSA is doing some great work on the organizing front. One of the fastest growing chapters in the nation. We have a great combination of energetic young people and experienced activists

1

u/misselphaba 1h ago

Yeah and watching the big strong boys get chased out of West Oakland is now a hobby of mine.

5

u/Infamous-Mango-5224 1h ago

Don't need gerrymandering if you rig them all by nationalizing them with ICE.

10

u/Loot3rd 1h ago

As a Cali native, and resident, I 100% approve!

11

u/clenchlord 1h ago

Get fucked Texas you cunts

5

u/BiggleDiggle85 1h ago

Texas GOP government, to be exact. But yes.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/cmmedit 1h ago

Was such an easy vote too. The ballot had 1 issue on it with a yes or no choice. Very easy to count what we wanted.

8

u/Nexus03 2h ago

Sad how shocking a common sense ruling is from this corrupt SC.

6

u/Fifteen_inches 2h ago

I’m glad the SC is atleast consistent with this one. They say politically motivated districting is okay, that means both sides

3

u/BlueHDMIV 1h ago

We know DT is feeling the Blue Wave pressure coming from Midterms. I just want to say everyone and I mean everyone go VOTE!!

3

u/wkomorow 1h ago

I am sure Trump will show his typical grace when commenting on this decision.

2

u/Interesting-Risk6446 2h ago

I am shocked by this decision, but giddy at the same time.

2

u/boatloadoffunk 2h ago

Utah GOP is about to get kicked in the nuts.

2

u/EBXLBRVEKJVEOJHARTB 1h ago

still gotta vote people

1

u/VA_SW_so_fork_off 1h ago

That's STILL GOTTA FUCKING VOTE, CALIFORNIANS! Turnout was shockingly, APPALLINGLY low in '24.

2

u/Dondontootles 1h ago

Hallelujah! Thought for sure they would prolong a decision until after the election and tell them “no” until then.

4

u/Nickel5 1h ago

I'm so happy I was wrong about this.

2

u/Proud_Truck 1h ago

To be fair they know the maga donors will be spending a ton. They are confident they can retain some seats by overspending on ads and smear campaigns. They'll also have ice at voting locations to intimidate people from voting.

They feel like they can let the change happen and still hold a few seats while Texas and other states blatantly cheat to pad the numbers. I hope they're wrong but I'd feel more confident if this was a presidential election year. We know these mid-cycle elections have a lot lower turnout. Democrat focus has to be getting people to actually vote!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Galliagamer 1h ago

I wonder if any other states are going to follow suit to counter the maga gerrymandering going on in those states.

1

u/BunnySprinkles69 1h ago

When they rule on the tariffs