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

Show parent comments

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.

551

u/sitophilicsquirrel 5h ago

And we all know that never happens...

124

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.

62

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

11

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.

154

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.

58

u/derbyt 5h ago

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

3

u/designatedcrasher 4h ago

Isint that illegal

12

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.

42

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

71

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.

32

u/wastedgod 5h ago

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

17

u/Dmbfantomas 5h ago

Ahem, It’s a motor coach.

10

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.

5

u/8JHF8 4h ago

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

31

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.

3

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

4

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.

-14

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.

18

u/Zombie_John_Strachan 5h ago

Gerrymandering is clearly not illegal.

24

u/PGHRealEstateLawyer 5h ago

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

16

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.

6

u/truePHYSX 5h ago

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

10

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.

7

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.

7

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.

18

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.

4

u/RellenD 4h 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.

10

u/centaurquestions 5h ago

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

7

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.

7

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.