Remember, the GOP also has a racial gerrymandering case against CA. Same case, but the state and plaintiff are on the other side of the political aisle.
The goal is to make sure the SCOTUS basically has to make a call that allows or stops this mid-cycle effort for both states. It’s going to require a lot of mental gymnastics to if they decided to give TX a pass, but not CA for the same damn case.
It’s going to require a lot of mental gymnastics to if they decided to give TX a pass, but not CA for the same damn case.
That’s never been too hard for today’s conservatives, especially this SCOTUS. They’ve made a few rulings with some bullshit like “this thing is illegal in all cases except this narrow circumstance with Trump”.
That depends entirely on the evidence.
This is it, exactly. It all comes down to “how” each state chose to implement their proposed changes. Some might be legal, while others might not.
Okay now block California’s also
No, because while racial gerrymandering is illegal because race is a protected class, political gerrymandering is not because political affiliation is not a protected class.
More specifically: staunchly Republican supporting areas tends to lean heavily white, while staunchly Democratic supporting areas tend to be much more cosmopolitan and racially heterogeneous. This had pretty obvious implications on the legal viability of gerrymandering towards the right in our one-dimensional political system - assuming, of course, anyone actually gives a shit about court orders and precedent, which the current regime (and I lump the Texas state government in with them) kinda doesn’t, so who fucking knows.
To be fair, the GOP is running the same play in CA. They’re claiming CA’s gerrymandering is racial and needs to be halted.
This case is good because, if it goes to the SCOTUS, they can’t throw it out without also throwing out what the GOP is pushing for in CA. Or, if they try to throw it out, they’re going to need some expert level mental gymnastics.
You are referring to Olympic level mental gymnasts FYI.
100%. The GOP is absolutely going to try to find some sort of silly reason why the two cases should be different.
Probably something a stupid about disenfranchising more districts with in-n-out burgers, and the cups contain bible verses on them, so religious discrimination.
California seems to have done it legally. Republicans have fought tooth and nail for decades to make gerrymandering legal. While I don’t believe in gerrymandering, I’m not going to try and save them from the literal consequences of their attacks on democracy. Maybe now Republicans will finally understand why an independent districting body matters.
Isn’t California’s map dependent on the Texas one going into effect? That was the original wording at least back when it was first introduced.
Isn’t California’s map dependent on the Texas one going into effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_California_Proposition_50
The specific text of the Proposition is
Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps in Response to Texas’ Partisan Redistricting. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
There is no trigger tied to any action by the Texas redistricting committee. However, prior to Democrats putting the amendment on the California ballot…
On August 11, 2025, Newsom sent a letter to Donald Trump, stating that California would pause any mid-decade redistricting effort if other states called off their efforts. Two days later, Newsom announced that the deadline had passed and he would move forward with his own redistricting effort.
Now that the law has passed with overwhelming support (64/35 on final count), the map that was drafted by the independent bipartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission is in effect going into 2026. This court decision has no effect on the California ballot amendment results or the enforcement of the new maps.
Yes. CA is basically responding to neutralize Texas. Ditto with this case. The GOP is trying to sue to top CA’s neutralization effort, and they’re claiming that CA’s very political gerrymander is secretly racist. In response, Dems are basically issuing the exact same racial gerrymander case in TX.
The one big difference is that CA’s voters are on record for supporting this. TX politicians are doing this without the consent of the people.
That language was removed, but you’re right it was there initially. I think they removed the language to be able to respond if several other states combined also redistricted.
The verbiage in prop 50 that limited action based on Texas outcomes of implementing their maps was removed before Newsom’s signature.
For now, at least, California’s actions will continue to move forward.
I’d say don’t count Texas out yet.
Block it everywhere, implement independent districting everywhere.
Like Ohio did?
That’s how you get fair districts with some districts being more fair than others.
That’s kind of the point of this law suit. The dems have a Texas suit about racial gerrymandering, and the GOP has a suit in CA about racial gerrymandering.
The point it’s to respond to Texas tit for tat. If TX gerrymanders, CA gerrymanders equivalently. Moreover, if the suit in Texas gets tossed by the SCOTUS, then the SCOTUS has an equivalent case in CA that will likely require an equivalent ruling.
The point in CA is to counterbalance, not make gains.
