The Truth About Texas

[Pommer]

The decision you appeal to wasn't plurality, it was a majority (5-4). Well, in terms of result, it was more like 7-2. Scalia and Thomas agreed with the other two dissenters on the merits, but thought the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction over the case and would have dismissed it for standing. Thus while they dissented, their preferred outcome would have still functionally had the same result as the majority opinion in keeping the redistricting commission.

Thanks for the heads up, I’ve amended the post.

 

[Yarddog]

How the heck can gerrymandering affect a statewide race when, by its very nature, a statewide race is completely unaffected by district borders?

While gerrymandering primarily impacts the composition of the state legislature, it can have indirect effects on gubernatorial elections by influencing candidate selection, voter engagement, and the policy landscape.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is always Utah. A ballot initiative in 2018 set up an independent commission that would set up the voting districts. In 2020, the commission met and submitted their maps, which under the law was supposed to be approved by the legislature. Instead, the legislature received the maps and completely ignored them, creating their own gerrymandered maps and passing it. Now it is being fought in the courts.

You have to "love" when citizens vote to change the law, the legislature decides they don't like the people's decision and ignore it, or pass new laws to overrule the will of the people.

Utah Supreme Court Upholds Block on Gerrymandered Congressional Map​

A district court ruled last month the 2021 map unconstitutionally violated the redistricting reforms voters approved through Proposition 4, and it developed a plan to put in place a new map in time for the 2026 election. The court also denied the legislative defendants’ motion to keep the 2021 map in place throughout the remedial process and any appeals – a ruling they appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

In the latest development, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision to deny the motion keeping the 2021 map in place.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Utah Supreme Court Upholds Block on Gerrymandered Congressional Map​

A district court ruled last month the 2021 map unconstitutionally violated the redistricting reforms voters approved through Proposition 4, and it developed a plan to put in place a new map in time for the 2026 election. The court also denied the legislative defendants’ motion to keep the 2021 map in place throughout the remedial process and any appeals – a ruling they appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

In the latest development, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision to deny the motion keeping the 2021 map in place.

Utah Judge Strikes Down GOP Gerrymander, Restores Voter-Approved Fair Map​

In a sweeping victory for voters, a Utah court struck down the GOP-controlled legislature’s congressional gerrymander and a companion law designed to entrench partisan power.

The court also approved a new map for the 2026 elections, which is likely to give Democrats one of the state’s four congressional seats.

Judge Dianna Gibson ruled Monday that both the legislature’s new map, known as Map C, and the accompanying law, SB 1011, violated Proposition 4, the voter-approved constitutional amendment banning partisan gerrymandering.

Gibson found that the Republican map directly contravened the will of voters, as expressed in their support for Prop 4.

At the center of the case was Map C, a congressional plan pushed through by GOP lawmakers after the court’s earlier [previous story] August order required new maps to comply with Proposition 4.

To remedy the violation, Gibson adopted Plaintiffs’ Map 1, a plan submitted by the pro-voting plaintiffs finding it best met the state’s constitutional standards.

 

[Fantine]

Utah. Home of honest conservatives.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Court blocks new Texas congressional map, in severe blow to GOP​

A panel of federal judges in Texas on Tuesday blocked the state’s new GOP-favored House map from being used ahead of the 2026 midterms by declaring it a likely racial gerrymander, dealing a blow to Republicans who have looked to net extra seats.

In a 2-1 vote, the panel ordered Texas Republicans to use the congressional lines they had in place before they redistricted earlier this year. The new map would have offered Republicans up to five pickup opportunities in the House in 2026.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown wrote for the majority. Appointed to the bench by President Trump, Brown was joined by U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Obama.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) quickly vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is already considering wide-ranging questions about racial gerrymandering lawsuits in a long-running battle in Louisiana.

 

[probinson]

Court blocks new Texas congressional map, in severe blow to GOP​

A panel of federal judges in Texas on Tuesday blocked the state’s new GOP-favored House map from being used ahead of the 2026 midterms by declaring it a likely racial gerrymander, dealing a blow to Republicans who have looked to net extra seats.

In a 2-1 vote, the panel ordered Texas Republicans to use the congressional lines they had in place before they redistricted earlier this year. The new map would have offered Republicans up to five pickup opportunities in the House in 2026.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown wrote for the majority. Appointed to the bench by President Trump, Brown was joined by U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Obama.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) quickly vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is already considering wide-ranging questions about racial gerrymandering lawsuits in a long-running battle in Louisiana.

This raises an interesting question. If Texas is prohibited from using their new gerrymandered map, will California opt to stay with their original map also, since it was ostensibly only "in response to" what Texas did?

Enquiring minds...

 

[essentialsaltes]

This raises an interesting question. If Texas is prohibited from using their new gerrymandered map, will California opt to stay with their original map also, since it was ostensibly only "in response to" what Texas did?

Enquiring minds...

Alas, the text of the proposition is what it is.

TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”​

 

[probinson]

Alas, the text of the proposition is what it is.

TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”​

Actually, no. That was just a childish social media post by Newsom in response to similar, childish social media posts by Trump.

The text of the proposition states:

First—This measure shall be known, and may be cited, as the “Election Rigging Response Act.”​

​

...​

​

(n) It is the intent of the people that California’s temporary maps be designed to neutralize the partisan gerrymandering being threatened by Republican-led states without eroding fair representation for all communities.​

​

Literally everything about this proposition was ostensibly in "response" to what Republicans were doing, right down to the title of the act. So it would follow that if it is found that Texas may not gerrymander their maps to benefit Republicans, the "response" to "neutralize" is no longer needed, because as the proposition also declares:

(i) California has long stood as a national leader for fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting​

​

Therefore, one would expect that California would be quite pleased to be able to use the "fair, independent, and nonpartisan" maps that they claim to love so much if Texas' gerrymandering is disallowed.

Of course, you have to believe that Democrats actually want "fair, independent, and nonpartisan" maps to believe that's true. And that's why I said it will be interesting to see if Texas is not permitted to use their gerrymandered maps how California will "respond". If Texas is not permitted to use their gerrymandered maps, Democrats lose the weak cover of "Well, we really don't want to do this, but we HAVE to."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Actually, no. That was just a childish social media post by Newsom in response to similar, childish social media posts by Trump.

The text of the proposition states:

First—This measure shall be known, and may be cited, as the “Election Rigging Response Act.”​

Sure, that's its name, but that's not the effect of the constitutional change. As for its temporariness; the new maps will be replaced by the usual committee process in 2030. The text also notes the efforts in other Republican states.

Literally everything about this proposition was ostensibly in "response"

The political movement, yes, but not the text of what was ratified by we the people of California.

​

Therefore, one would expect that California would be quite pleased to be able to use the "fair, independent, and nonpartisan" maps that they claim to love so much if Texas' gerrymandering is disallowed.

We can't just ignore our own Constitution!

If SCOTUS and the lower courts truly slay the TX gerrymander, we'll see if there's enough time to call another special election. I doubt it. Candidate filing starts in February, and they need to know what district they're filing for.

Trump and Texas missed the deadline to call this off. They wanted gerrymandering, they're gonna get it.

 

[probinson]

I doubt it. Candidate filing starts in February, and they need to know what district they're filing for.

Trump and Texas missed the deadline to call this off. They wanted gerrymandering, they're gonna get it.

Our hands were tied! We didn't WANT gerrymandering, but we HAD to vote for gerrymandering!

Baloney.

I'm just not buying it. Democrats will gladly take this opportunity for a power grab, as would Republicans. Despite all of their claims to the contrary, what all politicians want is power, not "fair, independent, nonpartisan" voting.

Actions speak louder than words, and when you vote FOR something you claim you're against, I just do not believe that you are against it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Our hands were tied! We didn't WANT gerrymandering, but we HAD to vote for gerrymandering!

Baloney.

You don't have to like it, but we put this to a vote, and the result has been tallied. And now our hands really are tied. The only way to undo it is with another vote (or wait until 2030).

 

[probinson]

You don't have to like it, but we put this to a vote, and the result has been tallied.

Indeed. Californians overwhelmingly want gerrymandering.

And now our hands really are tied. The only way to undo it is with another vote (or wait until 2030).

And I'm sure that California will do everything it can to ensure another vote if the Texas gerrymandering is stopped.

 

[probinson]

You don't have to like it, but we put this to a vote, and the result has been tallied. And now our hands really are tied. The only way to undo it is with another vote (or wait until 2030).

IANAL but if you read the text of prop 50, it goes to excruciating length to make clear that these temporary, gerrymandered maps in favor of Democrats are only necessary "in response to" what Texas is doing. Therefore, one could argue that if Texas can't gerrymander their maps, the text of the proposition leaves open the possibility of NOT using temporary, gerrymandered maps.

Section 4B states:

(b) In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law, the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21400) of Division 21 of the Elections Code shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d).​

​

Therefore, it seems pretty clear that there's a strong case to be made that if there is nothing to "respond" to, then there is no reason to redraw the maps in California, and that it is perfectly in-line with what the people of California voted for, which was to "neutralize" what was going on in Texas.

I just don't buy your assertion that another vote would be necessary. The language of the proposition did not state that new maps MUST be drawn without exception, but rather that they must do so "in response to" what Texas was doing. If Texas does nothing, there's nothing to respond to. And the bill goes to great lengths to tell us that Californians really, truly and utterly desire "fair, independent, and nonpartisan" maps.

 

[essentialsaltes]

IANAL but if you read the text of prop 50, it goes to excruciating length to make clear that these temporary, gerrymandered maps in favor of Democrats are only necessary "in response to" what Texas is doing. Therefore, one could argue that if Texas can't gerrymander their maps, the text of the proposition leaves open the possibility of NOT using temporary, gerrymandered maps.

I expect that will be one of the things the CA GOP argues in court.

Therefore, it seems pretty clear that there's a strong case to be made that if there is nothing to "respond" to, then there is no reason to redraw the maps in California,

They have already been redrawn and the new ones adopted as a result of the vote.

The language of the proposition did not state that new maps MUST be drawn without exception

It doesn't say anything about drawing at all. The submitted maps "shall be" used.

 

[probinson]

It doesn't say anything about drawing at all. The submitted maps "shall be" used.

Read the whole thing again:

(b) In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law, the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21400) of Division 21 of the Elections Code shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d).​

​

Again, the text of this bill makes clear that these maps "shall ... be" used with a very specific condition; "in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025".

What I find interesting is that if in fact Californians do not want gerrymandered maps as they claim, one would think they would be thrilled with the kibosh of the Texas gerrymandering so that they could use the maps they ostensibly wanted all along. Proposition 50 was written intentionally with a condition of when the gerrymandered maps were to be used. This gave the voters the ability to claim that they didn't really want gerrymandering while simultaneously voting FOR gerrymandering, because they had no choice but to "respond" to what was happening in Texas. But that facade gets shattered if Texas is not permitted to use their blatantly gerrymandered maps and there's nothing to "respond" to.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Read the whole thing again:

(b) In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law, the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21400) of Division 21 of the Elections Code shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d).​

​

Again, the text of this bill makes clear that these maps "shall ... be" used with a very specific condition; "in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025".

There is no conditional used.

Texas did indeed undergo a redistricting process, which is one of the declarations in the earlier part of the proposition.

In response to that, we have proposed this action. Yea or nay.

IANAL either, but I don't think this has legs.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Read the whole thing again:

(b) In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law, the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21400) of Division 21 of the Elections Code shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d).​

​

Again, the text of this bill makes clear that these maps "shall ... be" used with a very specific condition; "in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025".

No, that's not a condition of use. It's an explanation for the change. There are a couple of conditional statements in the law, but none of them pertain to Texas. They are:

"and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law" - i.e. you must make a new law or constitutional amendment (or find a provision in the existing constitution that prohibits it) if you want to stop or change this law

and

"shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d)" - i.e. it goes into effect on the date it goes into effect, and it ends when the redistricting commission re-draws the maps following the 2030 census.

 

[probinson]

There is no conditional used.

Sure there is. "In response to" is an indication of a catalyst for the action.

Texas did indeed undergo a redistricting process, which is one of the declarations in the earlier part of the proposition.

It's stated right there in section 4B. But if Texas' gerrymandering efforts are halted, there's no longer anything to "respond" to.

In response to that, we have proposed this action. Yea or nay.

In response to what? In response to Texas gerrymandering the election in their favor. If they can't do that, then this action isn't necessary, at least according to the language of the proposition.

IANAL either, but I don't think this has legs.

Of course, all of this is moot until we hear rom SCOTUS on Texas. If Texas is permitted to move forward with their gerrymandered maps, then Californians can feel justified in their own gerrymandering.

I really hope SCOTUS stops the Texas gerrymandering. It will simultaneously hurt the Republican efforts to gerrymander the election in their favor while exposing the hypocrisy of Democrats who say they don't want it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Sure there is. "In response to" is an indication of a catalyst for the action.

That's not a conditional. "I'm doing X because of Y" is an explanation, not a condition. If you wanted to make it conditional, you would say "I will do X if they do Y."