The Truth About Texas

[probinson]

That's not a conditional. "I'm doing X because of Y" is an explanation, not a condition.

Would you do "X" if "Y" hadn't happened? It may not be a condition, but "Y" was a catalyst for the action. And if "Y" isn't a factor any longer, "X" is no longer necessary.

If you wanted to make it conditional, you would say "I will do X if they do Y."

It's "in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025". But if there is no congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, there is nothing to "respond" to.

Legal proceedings aside, the intent of this proposition was clearly stated to "neutralize" what Texas was doing. But if Texas can't use partisan gerrymandering to rig the election in their favor, there's nothing to "neutralize".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Would you do "X" if "Y" hadn't happened? It may not be a condition, but "Y" was a catalyst for the action. And if "Y" isn't a factor any longer, "X" is no longer necessary.

It's "in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025". But if there is no congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, there is nothing to "respond" to.

The thing is that it has happened. It may or may not be reversed, but Texas did go through congressional redistricting in 2025.

Legal proceedings aside, the intent of this proposition was clearly stated to "neutralize" what Texas was doing. But if Texas can't use partisan gerrymandering to rig the election in their favor, there's nothing to "neutralize".

I don't disagree, but the way that the California law was written, the only ways to reverse it prior to 2030 are to find it unconstitutional or pass another law to roll it back.

 

[probinson]

The thing is that it has happened.

It sure has.

It may or may not be reversed, but Texas did go through congressional redistricting in 2025.

Indeed they did. But if it's reversed, there is no longer anything to neutralize.

I don't disagree, but the way that the California law was written, the only ways to reverse it prior to 2030 are to find it unconstitutional or pass another law to roll it back.

Then why include all the language about "responding" to and "neutralizing" Texas? There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The sprit of the law was very clearly to "neutralize" Texas' gerrymandered maps. But if Texas doesn't have gerrymandered maps, there is nothing to "neutralize". Again, IANAL but that seems pretty significant to me. If the intent of the law was to institute gerrymandered maps no matter what, then all the other language about Texas was completely unnecessary and superfluous.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Then why include all the language about "responding" to and "neutralizing" Texas?

Because they wanted to state the reason for the change.