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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 76 points 6 months ago (6 children)

That's one hell of an interesting twist.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Roberts and Gorsuch aren't obsessed with winning every short-game match up. They need gerrymandering to be legal in the abstract and for the long term. If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.

    In a wave year where Republicans are likely getting swamped out of dozens of seats anyway, there's very little to gain and a lot to lose by creating an exception to the rule on when gerrymandering is legal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 6 months ago

    If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.

    The Roberts SCOTUS has already given any future SCOTUS ample precedent for utterly ignoring previous rulings as it suits their partisan needs several times over. If they think this one somehow stands separate from anything else it's laughable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I'm sure they have something worse up their sleeve, and this wasn't worth the PR flak they'd catch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Congratulations, you can use your maps!

    On an unrelated note, your maps don’t matter, because we’re gonna let a pants-shitting child rapist cancel the elections as long as he says they’re “rigged.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    And even if he isn't able to do that, just the simple fact that Republicans have dominated rural areas and have ton of states with almost zero population in their thrall means they have a lot more room to run up the scoreboard with map shenanigans. If gerrymandering is legal for everyone, that's a net loss for the Dems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 44 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    It's both actually. The justices beholden to Trumpanzee were informed that the election will be stolen anyway and so the fallout from them "looking even more like clowns" wasn't necessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 31 points 6 months ago

    Good, but also holy fuck we need to ban gerrymandering

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Americans need to abolish the electoral college.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 24 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Nice of them to "allow" it. I thought the states were responsible for their own elections?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    The think the race thing is one of the newer amendments, and the baseline is 'states can draw the maps however they want' because that's what they needed to say to get the states on board with being a country in the first place

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    I think this is really dangerous, actually. SCOTUS is no implicitly (or on their way to) saying that severe and perverse gerrymandering, is okay

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    This was already legally happening in Texas. Cali did this in response to Texas being allowed to heavily gerrymander their state in Republican favor.

    Editing to add: And it's a time-constrained deal. This new map will only exist until 2030 when the maps would be redrawn anyhow. Cali put this up to a vote. Texas just...did it without a vote. Its near impossible for on-the-ground voters to get anything on a ballot in Texas due to the way the state Constitution is written.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Hey - maybe this shouldn't be legal at all? Why is neither party proposing an amendment outlawing this?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    Is it because they know there will be no elections?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    "Oops we fucked democracy. Let's do the bare minimum going forward."

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Not gonna lie, I was morbidly looking forward to how they were going to rule against California while still upholding Texas.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    They've fallen back to "well it doesn't matter anyway because elections will be canceled."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›