The Truth About Texas

RocksInMyHead said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

RocksInMyHead said:

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

Click to expand...

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".

probinson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

probinson said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

RocksInMyHead said:

The thing is that it has happened.

Click to expand...

It sure has.

RocksInMyHead said:

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

Click to expand...

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

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

probinson said:

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

Click to expand...

Because they wanted to state the reason for the change.

essentialsaltes said:

Utah Supreme Court Upholds Block on Gerrymandered Congressional Map​

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

Click to expand...

Republican solution? Pack the court.

Utah governor signs bill adding justices to state Supreme Court as redistricting appeal looms​

Once he fills the new seats, Cox will have appointed five of the seven sitting justices.

Fantine said:

Why didn't Biden do that? You've got to fight fire with fire.

Click to expand...

Democratic leaderships allergy to vertebrae.

essentialsaltes said:

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,

Click to expand...

Naturally, Utah Republicans are trying to undo Prop 4.

'Never seen anything like it': Thousands of Utahns want their names removed from Prop 4 repeal​

With just days left to collect signatures in the effort to repeal Proposition 4, county clerks have received more than 2,300 requests from people asking for their signatures to be removed.

More than 85,000 signatures have been verified statewide, according to state data.

During last year's effort to repeal HB267, a bill banning public unions from collective bargaining, more than 320,000 signatures were turned in statewide.

Chapman's office received only 12 requests for signature removal during that referendum — a "huge contrast compared to this."

Better Boundaries, the group behind Proposition 4, launched a campaign earlier this month to encourage voters to remove their names from the petition after KSL reported misleading claims by some petition gatherers.

"When Utahns passed Proposition 4 in 2018, they were clear about what they wanted. Utahns should know exactly what they're signing, and if a repeal effort can't win on the facts, it shouldn't try to win through misleading petition practices."

Utah County also flagged several signature packets as potentially fraudulent, after several gatherers were reported by Utahns for Representative Government.

The repeal effort has received support from President Donald Trump, and his son, Donald Trump Jr., released a video last week with Hunter Nation, urging Utahns to sign.