• ccunning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    1 day ago

    It would be too funny if Texas had to roll back their changes and California was able to keep their changes made in response to Texas’.

    • chonkyninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 day ago

      California’s law was written so that it would only be used if Texas did gerrymander their districts. Last I read.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Cool. So CA doesn’t do it, Republicans push this to SCOTUS as they do with literally everything they don’t like, and then they give Texas the go-ahead with a timeframe that’s too short for CA to respond in turn… :/

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m willing to bet any timeline that is too short for CA would also be too short for Texas.

          I think also the stipulation applied to other states also. Not just Texas. Others, like Indiana, are talking about redistricting too.

          • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Sounds like Indiana doesn’t have the votes for redistricting, for now. Cheeto Mussolini is big mad about that. He posted on Tr*th Social and got one of the Republicans opposing it swatted.

            Pritzker in Illinois was going to push forward a redistricting for that state, too, if Indiana went ahead. The map looked hilarious and would’ve essentially shut the GOP out of politics in Illinois altogether.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I don’t believe CA already has potential districts drawn up, but I believe Texas already does so an overturned ruling would not need much time for Texas to implement their plan while CA would need to actually draw the new districts.

            Nevermind, it looks like the plan CA has included already considered districts

          • Hawke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            I’m willing to bet any timeline that is too short for CA would also be too short for Texas.

            You think they’ll let that stop them? These folks are the kings of hypocrisy and double standards.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              22 hours ago

              Hypocrisy is one thing, but the ability to actually print stuff is another entirely. They are, fortunately, still bound by the laws of physics.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Last I read I think that provision was struck before the vote since Texas had already moved ahead? I’m not sure though. It would be very funny if due to the timing, California can redistrict anyway.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      I dont want any of it. Gerrymandering is bullshit no matter who does it. I’m begrudgingly okay with California doing it to rebalance the scales after Texas’ open voter suppression, but I would much rather it be illegal for everyone, always, everywhere.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 day ago

          Gerrymandering is not actually illegal. SCOTUS has said only gerrymandering that specifically disenfranchises based on race is illegal due to specific laws passed to protect against that exact thing. Otherwise, it’s fair game. And much more recently, they even relaxed the racial protections, because they’re fucking corrupt.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    Sounds like they rejected it based on racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court may end that precedent soon. I guess it will still be beneficial if the ruling holds until the next election.

  • myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    No. The blow was to bubba, by Trump. Not a blow to Trump. Unless we are talking about those underage girls he raped.