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.
GOP maps were gerrymandered with the expectation that a certain amount of minority groups would still support the GOP and would factor into the way the districts are divided. All of that has changed now, meaning the assumptions made using past statistical data from elections and demographics are invalid. Much of it has to do with the views of immigration enforcement for the ones not deported. This also factors into DNC gerrymandering in other ways. Remains to be seen what impact the actual deportations have on voting. As long as no one being here illegally was voting, there is no net political loss for Democrats. It’s not like they are losing voters. So the midterms will be very interesting. It’s no surprise they want to take what’s going on in Fulton County, Georgia and try to apply an illegal immigrant angle to it, then have Bannon say ICE needs to run intimidation campaigns at the polling stations. The effect of this again goes back to the same root issues. There is a long history in the U.S. of voting site intimidation. Much of it having to do with people exercising their rights to vote during the Civil Rights Era in the South.
As long as no one being here illegally was voting,
Narrator: “They weren’t.”
there is no net political loss for Democrats.
Possibly the opposite. Many of those violently kidnapped and deported have friends and family that ARE citizens and CAN vote. Many of them probably naively voted R in the last election. I suspect many of them will not make that mistake in the midterms.
Remains to be seen what impact the actual deportations have on voting. As long as no one being here illegally was voting, there is no net political loss for Democrats. It’s not like they are losing voters.
Right, It should have no impact, seeing how non-citizens can’t vote. The only impact would be to motivate voters to come through and vote out the fascists.
Americans need to abolish the electoral college.
Good, but also holy fuck we need to ban gerrymandering
Not gonna lie, I was morbidly looking forward to how they were going to rule against California while still upholding Texas.
I guess they don’t really care where the corruption and perversion of democracy comes from, as long as the needle gets moved.
Well that is a bad, hopefully disingenuous take. The goal in California was not to move the needle with corruption and perversion of democracy. It was to prevent the needle from moving with corruption and perversion of democracy (by the Trump Administration and other corrupt GOP governors and legislatures), which, unfortunately required the same perversion to accomplish. It never should have been necessary or allowed for EITHER party to do this to ANY state. It’s fucked up that it is or ever was allowed, and needs to be fixed as soon as humanly possible. But under those circumstances to not respond to your corrupt counterpart pulling the needle their way by pulling it back yourself is to allow the corruption to overwhelm everyone and everything. It’s self-defense. The moral highground that results in boots on your neck is not a path forward.
I get where you’re coming from and totally get why I’m getting downvoted. I understand that people are interpreting “the needle” to be measuring “evil.”
It never should have been necessary or allowed for EITHER party to do this to ANY state.
This is where the spirit of my comment is coming from. We can all agree that gerrymandering is bad, since it’s usually used to artificially boost power. Also, anyone paying attention and not lying to themselves can see that really fucked up shit happens when Conservatives are allowed to artificially boost their power. You are correct that this is a helpful move in the short term.
In the long term; the kind of timelines that those who maliciously support the Fairness Doctrine, Citizens United, and the Patriot Act think on; this is furthering a dangerous precedent.
I’m going to try explaining my concern using a ridiculous analogy.
Begin analogyLet’s say you’ve got a coworker named Taylor, and Taylor poops on the floor. Not just once! Like, often. So, everyone makes Taylor clean up their poop. And then the boss angrily tells Taylor to stop pooping on the floor. Taylor learns their lesson. For a little bit. But then they poop on the floor again. Just a little bit. Just to test the waters. But everyone catches on immediately and puts a stop to it. The boss even puts up signs saying that no one is allowed to poop on the floor.
This goes on for a while. Most of the other coworkers barely even say anything anymore when Taylor poops on the floor. The boss allowed some of the employees to start an Anti-floor-poop group, so everyone else just figures that it’s the group’s job to stop Taylor from pooping on the floor and to tell the boss to force Taylor to clean it up. Then, you get a new boss. And this boss one day says, “enough! I’m tired of this group always complaining about Taylor pooping on the floor! It’s like that’s all you do! In fact, I’m dissolving this group!” Now, everyone starts complaining about Taylor pooping on the floor, so the boss, completely missing the point, says, “I don’t care who poops on the floor! Just take care of it!”
Another coworker says, “I’ll show the boss! I’m gonna poop on the floor, too!” Lots of people rally around behind this coworker, and they all watch as this hero poops on the floor right in front of the boss. And the boss does nothing. Confused by the lack of reaction, everyone shuffles off, leaving the poop on the floor. And no one cleans up the poop either, because that defeats the purpose! So now, no one does anything about the poops on the floor, and there are more appearing. But everyone normalizes it, and just tries their best to not step in poop.
Even if more poop didn’t appear, you’ve still got at least one poop on the floor. Which is arguably more poop on the floor than any workplace should have. But it remains as a statement of that time that the boss didn’t act while watching someone poop on the floor.
End analogyMany people see the poop in my story as “the needle.” But I’m talking about the increasing inaction and subsequent apathy. I honestly welcomed California’s attempt to prove a point, and really expected this to go differently. It felt a lot like the Satanic Church acting as the separator between church and state. But the Supreme Court saying “this is fine,” frightens me. And it makes the pessimist in me think that the people working to advance fascism are using the momentum of our counterattack to further their goals.
The needle I’m looking at doesn’t swing towards Blue or Red. It goes from Direct Democracy to Full-Blown Fascism. Right now, anything that weakens equal representation and civil rights is helping push that needle towards fascism.
If you’re focusing on “Democrats can do it too,” then this is an absolute win. But if you look at Republicans and apolitical fascists using this to cry “rigged election,” and champing at the bit to explore new exploitations while we’re too busy doing an end zone dance, then this is terrifying.
Republican candidates for governor are currently ahead, Tom Steyer is running as a spoiler, and a mandatory voter ID law is about to win in the primary. California is a red state wearing a blue T-shirt, and it’s about to bite us on the ass.
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.
Plan B for sure. It smells like “Fine, gerrymander CA, we’re gonna rig the shit out of this election anyway. Good luck, byeee!”
That’s plan A.
They were already using it, California did this to get those banned and failed.
Is it really failing when you so often seem to wind up on the same team?
California Gov. Gavin Newsom doubles down on his criticism of the proposed billionaire wealth tax
The comment comes as billionaires in the state have made public their intent to relocate elsewhere in the wake of the tax’s proposal. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, tech investor David Sacks, and Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have all taken steps to leave.
At the same time, billionaires are dishing out piles of cash to fund a campaign against the ballot initiative. Thiel made his biggest political contribution in years, donating $3 million to a California business group leading the fight against the billionaire wealth tax.
Sometimes it feels like Trump was the response of a crazy abusive asshole (Thiel/Musk/broligarchs) who “tried to do things the nice way by giving you somebody like Gavin Newsome,” but since people didn’t want that he decided to show how crazy he can really be for a 4 years to wear you down the next time around (if you’re lucky enough to even get a next time around).
Then threatening this bullshit of “if you expect me to pay taxes, you’re going to regret it. I’m warning you… you’re going to be so sorry once I’m gone”
It’s like stop flapping your fucking gums and leave already you piece of shit, nobody wants you, and we’re already in the toilet with you here. America can do bad all by herself. At least then we won’t have to deal with your bullshit on top of everything else.
Anyway, long winded way of saying, I don’t trust Gavin Newsome anymore than I trust Peter Thiel. Fuck them both.
Just because they’re on the same side doesn’t mean they aren’t greedy.
More Dems in office means more bribes for them.
Like more bribes from the Dems or more Dems willing to accept bribes? Either way, that’s my point. It’s not really a Dems vs Republican problem when it comes to a Newsome Dem. vs. a Republican. It’s a problem of a bipartisan oligarchy seeking to destroy what’s left of a democracy.
You could argue it’s already been destroyed, but then that just leads back to the question of why bother wasting money on all the theatrics and big threats if they really are untouchable? Why would they need to make this campaign attacking a billionaire tax? Why would the supreme court need to give California the ok before giving the red states the same blessing?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
The change is time constrained. Anti gerrymandering laws go back into place.
Is it because they know there will be no elections?
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.
Trump would have won a straight up popular vote for this term.
Amendments need 3/4 of the states to ratify. And good luck getting enough of the partisan controlled State governments to agree to that
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.
It took two constitutional amendments to make states allow black people and women to vote. There’s another banning poll taxes and the like.
https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights
Most US laws on voting rely on those amendments for support. That’s why it’s only illegal to gerrymander if it disenfranchises minorities.
There is nothing in the constitution directly disallowing extreme racial gerrymanders. Those are unlawful not because they’re unconditional, but because they’re prohibited by the voting rights act.
Congress could very well have passed simple laws banning racial and gender disenfranchisement in federal elections. The amendments were necessary to impose a rule on sub-federal elections and to keep a mere majority from taking the franchise away.
The US Constituon is neither very long nor hard to read, and it has oodles of text that Congress could invoke to ban the gerrymandering of congressional districts:
US Constitution article 1 section 4:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Article 4, section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…
14th amendment section 2:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
There is nothing in the constitution directly disallowing extreme racial gerrymanders. Those are unlawful not because they’re unconditional, but because they’re prohibited by the voting rights act.
Which is backed by the US constitution and in particular the 14th amendment. The “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th amendment in particular is frequently cited in challenges to racial gerrymandering.
SCOTUS rulings are not the constitution. While the country operated on the idea that a supreme court ruling was final law for a few decades, the Roberts court forever destroyed the idea of binding precedent when they discarded Roe v Wade.
Racial gerrymandering is now effectively constitutional so long as there’s a fig leaf of partisanship. While SCOTUS could plausibly jump the other way in the future, Congress is literally the primary body of the US federal government, and has all the power they want to ban gerrymandering in house districts and plausibly even local jurisdictions.
Racial gerrymandering is now effectively constitutional so long as there’s a fig leaf of partisanship.
Which is why… I’m saying… We need a constitutional amendment… to make it illegal outright to gerrymander.
I don’t mean to argue that an amendment wouldn’t work, or be the correct next-step. We just don’t need to wait for one, just like we didnt need one to pass a law making an officiated gay marriage legit in every state no matter what local laws say.
It’s like SCOTUS reform. Sure, we should pass an amendment and enshrine the reform into a hard-to-revert form, but that shouldn’t stop us from defining good behavior and kicking Scalia to the curb.
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.
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.
That something isn’t likely to pass doesn’t mean you don’t try. There should be, and needs to be, a constant push. It’s so obviously corrupt to allow gerrymandering.
The solution is not more, it’s none.
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.
No, it doesn’t. If it did then this law would be unconstitutional. You can’t “temporarily” violate the Constitution.
It’s a state law. The state decides how they want to represent their constituents. This state law is temporary.
State law can’t violate the constitution.
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!”
“Oops we fucked democracy. Let’s do the bare minimum going forward.”
