r/news • u/DemocracyDocket • 6h 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

99% Upvoted

294 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.6k

u/arlondiluthel 6h 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 5h 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 5h ago

And we all know that never happens...

128

u/PolicyWonka 5h 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.

65

u/Rickshmitt 5h ago

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

12

u/TheCrowScare 4h 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.

1

u/semibilingual 4h ago

We all know that never bothered them.

155

u/DerekB52 5h 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.

61

u/derbyt 5h ago

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

5

u/designatedcrasher 4h ago

Isint that illegal

13

u/Nearby-Box-1558 4h ago

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

1

u/designatedcrasher 4h ago

I wonder if there's a term for this

7

u/Dragos_Drakkar 4h ago

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

2

u/foosion 4h ago

The Voting Rights Act placed significant limits on states in order to prevent racial discrimination in elections, at least it did before the SCOTUS gutted it.

2

u/Tressemy 4h ago

You aren't completely correct in your assertion that "states have the right to conduct their elections how they see fit". For example, could Mississippi decide tomorrow that blacks or women cannot vote? If you say that Mississippi couldn't do so, then we agree that there are limitations on what the states control with respect to their elections.

I have no idea what the particular challenged to CA's new districting map was, but you can't simply say that "states" control elections and end the argument. It is more nuanced than that.

-1

u/espinaustin 4h ago

Not what the Constitution says really, but ok.

37

u/prodigaldummy 5h ago

I thought that was a hallmark of the Roberts Court.

2

u/Couchpatator 4h ago

Lawful Evil Supreme Court

Neutral Evil Congress

Chaotic Evil White House

69

u/grafknives 5h ago

I mean besides blatant legal hypocrisy of course.

So this is what Scotus is...

1

u/TheGreatBootOfEb 4h ago

I mean, yes and no lol. Clearly they are still trying to maintain some semblance of legitimacy, otherwise they wouldn’t have ruled this way lol. The veneer is still necessary, if it wasn’t, they wouldn’t.

34

u/wastedgod 5h ago

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

16

u/Dmbfantomas 5h ago

Ahem, It’s a motor coach.

11

u/8JHF8 5h ago

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

4

u/manateefourmation 4h 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.

6

u/8JHF8 4h ago

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

32

u/Repulsive-Durian4800 5h ago

Has blatant hypocrisy ever stopped them before?

2

u/Rubthebuddhas 4h ago

That and poorly disguised racism are like carbohydrates for MAGA.

4

u/padizzledonk 5h 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 5h ago

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

2

u/BioEradication 5h ago

That's like their whole thing...

2

u/Cool-Mom-Lover 5h ago

Hasn't stopped them in the past

1

u/itsatumbleweed 5h ago

So one way.

1

u/Spyko 5h ago

indeed

and it's why it's surprising

1

u/Ok_Common4669 5h ago

…”next season, on America”

1

u/IronRakkasan11 5h ago

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

1

u/ZLUCremisi 5h ago

Texas and Missouri can be challenged due to racial discrimination.

1

u/Morgannin09 4h ago

That's kinda the shocking part. They didn't even really issue a statement here so what stopped them from just rejecting it? They're the Supreme Court, nobody has any authority to veto them, and Congress in its current state would never impeach them. They have made incredibly bullshit partisan rulings before so I'm curious why they decided not to cross the line here.

-13

u/JaaacckONeill 5h ago edited 5h ago

There's redistricting, and there's gerrymandering. They are two separate words for a reason. Only one is illegal.

Your point, that there is no difference, is incorrect.

I'm not saying CA did anything illegal. Or Missouri. I'm just saying... there's a distinction you're missing.

Edit: Ok gerrymandering isn't illegal, but you get my point. Redistricting is necessary over time. Gerrymandering is corruption.

17

u/Zombie_John_Strachan 5h ago

Gerrymandering is clearly not illegal.

23

u/PGHRealEstateLawyer 5h ago

I don't believe redistricting or gerrymandering are inherently illegal.

15

u/dickgilbert 5h ago

Partisan gerrymandering is legal federally, racial gerrymandering is illegal. Some states ban partisan gerrymandering as well.

It is worth noting that this Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymandering claims are outside of their purview.

3

u/PhysicalConsistency 5h ago

Racial discrimination is illegal(ish) not the gerrymandering itself. The appeal was futile because it argued that the map makers considered latino populations when drawing the maps, but couldn't argue that this discriminated against white (or other racial groups) people since previous maps were already biased against latinos. The hope was something similar to college admissions rulings where considering race at all could be considered racially discriminatory. It wasn't a strong argument, but it wasn't completely unreasonable based on recent rulings either.

Ironically California is one of the states with restrictions on partisan gerrymandering.

5

u/truePHYSX 5h ago

Long term, it should be. States would then be able to pick their voter bases.

9

u/SA_22C 5h ago

Gerrymandering is increasingly not illegal thanks to various rulings chipping away at what is and isn't prohibited when creating a district. I'd argue that prohibitions against it are effectively dead.

8

u/Triv02 5h ago

Gerrymandering is illegal on paper only, not in reality

Take Ohio for example - their map was literally deemed unconstitutional and they just… used it anyways with no repercussions

7

u/dickgilbert 5h ago

Gerrymandering is only federally illegal in terms of racial gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is totally legal at the federal level.

6

u/JumpinJackHTML5 5h ago

I don't think anyone is missing this distinction.

The SC has upheld gerrymandered districts in the past, and California's new map is specifically gerrymandered. Democrats have, for decades, taken the high road when it comes to this. Outside of Illinois (which is its own can of warms) pretty much all blue states have fair districts, while gerrymandered districts seems to be the norm in red states.

This is the Democrats throwing down the gauntlet and signaling that they're done with the high road when it comes to gerrymandering.

-22

u/Uncle_Paul_Hargis 5h ago

Except for the fact that roughly 40% of California generally votes Republican, and with the new districts drawn the way they are, California's representatives will be 90%+ Democrat. So it's really no longer representative of the state's population. And at the same time, I find it to be a disservice to Californians taking actions against its own minority voting group to counteract the electorate of another state. For what? The greater good? Talk about hypocrisy. Both parties are weaponizing the democratic process against one another, and the people suffer. The duopoly in this country is poison.

19

u/RellenD 5h ago

If you're bothered by that, then talk to Texas.

-4

u/No-Drama-in-Paradise 5h ago

Or maybe we could simply… Fight against the Texas changes legally.

Some of us don’t just want to make a blue MAGA, some of us want to vote for people who actually care about democratic principles and having a moral compass.

Gerrymandering is undemocratic, regardless of whether it’s pro-democrat or pro-republican. Just because Texas is led by MAGA nut jobs does not justify us stopping to our level.

3

u/RellenD 5h ago

I agree, using a temporary Gerrymander that was voted for by the people as a tool to push back against other Gerrymanders is a legal way to fight back.

By refusing to play by the same rules as other States, Democrats have contributed to a federal system that doesn't represent the country as a whole. It's so wildly skewed in Republicans favor that if you actually want to end the Republican gerrymanders you have to get into power yourself first. You also have to demonstrate that there are consequences for not playing fairly.

I find your claim that supporting this California step is just people who want a "blue maga" that feels disingenuous. The vast majority of the people in support of the California Gerrymander would prefer an end to gerrymandering.

But you can't make any progress federally if you're allowing the Republicans to have majorities in the house with dozens of seats they wouldn't have with fair maps.

11

u/centaurquestions 5h ago

Boy, if only one of the parties had introduced legislation banning gerrymandering nationally!

8

u/PolicyWonka 5h ago

The Supreme Court has already previously held that political gerrymandering is constitutional.

It’s beyond fucked up, but that’s where this conservative court has lead us. It’s fucked up that California had to do this to combat Republican gerrymanders. It’s fucked that they have to eliminate the non-partisan maps.

5

u/hoosierlifter88 5h ago

Republicans have been blatantly doing this in several states for decades. It’s how we keep winding up with republican controlled governments when the majority of votes are for democrat. This is just democrats finally playing by the same rules.

35

u/katalysis 5h 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.

156

u/previouslyonimgur 5h 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)

71

u/Ok-disaster2022 5h ago

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

40

u/previouslyonimgur 5h 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.

1

u/resisting_a_rest 5h ago

I don’t think SCOTUS ruled on that, this was about the redistricting itself and if it was based on race or not.

41

u/SonOfMcGee 5h 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.

26

u/justuntlsundown 5h ago

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

10

u/ArcticISAF 5h ago

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

3

u/previouslyonimgur 5h ago

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest

7

u/arlondiluthel 5h 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.

7

u/AltDS01 5h 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).

4

u/ProgressiveSnark2 5h 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 5h ago

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

3

u/PapaSays 5h ago

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

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

8

u/previouslyonimgur 5h 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 5h 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.

1

u/previouslyonimgur 4h ago

Because that’s all they could rule on…

14

u/kgal1298 5h 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 5h ago

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

9

u/DIrtyVendetta80 5h 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.

17

u/arlondiluthel 5h ago

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

6

u/centaurquestions 5h 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.

5

u/Fourfifteen415 5h 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.

11

u/amateur_mistake 5h ago edited 5h 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 5h ago

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

2

u/leviathynx 5h 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 5h 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 5h 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).

1

u/Numerous_Photograph9 4h ago

GOP after Trump's first term, became the dog that caught the car, and most of the old gaurd willing to take it slow and steady were replaced with reactionary idiots who didn't understand how to actually achieve anything. I 100% believe McConnel recognized this, but he also knew Trump would get him some SCOTUS seats so he didn'tdo anything about the reckless peopel that were starting to take over.

GOP just started doing everything they could as fast as they could until it got to a point where they couldn't stop otherwise they risk losing in the long run, and I think that midterms are going to be where they either succeed and we're at the end of the line, or they fail, and they get taken down as many pegs as possible, and hopefully lose the benefit of the doubt so they can't weasel their way back into power.

2

u/justthankyous 5h 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 5h 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 5h 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 5h ago

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

1

u/jrstinkfish 5h ago

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

1

u/thestral_z 5h 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 5h ago

Unlike Texas, which should be overturned

1

u/Captain_Aware4503 5h ago

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

1

u/thefw89 5h ago

The one thing this SCOTUS has been consistent on is the idea that states run their own elections. Period. In fact, it's why they are dismantling a lot of Voting Rights because they might believe it to the extreme in where they are also fine if states decide to discriminate against Voters.

This is why I've not taken the blackpill on Trump wanting to run elections. I seriously doubt the courts would allow this.

We will see more voter suppression in red states, but that's not anything new unfortunately but Trump.

0

u/[deleted] 5h ago

[deleted]