Well, now the Justice Department is suing to block Prop 50.
So they need to come up with some legal theory where it’s OK for Texas and Missouri to do this, but not California? That should be amusing.
It’ll be extra amusing when the Supremes rubber-stamp it, no matter how nonsensical it might be.
The theory on Reddit is that the Justice Department will try to claim that Texas’ gerrymandering is politically based and is okay, but California’s is racially based and therefore not okay.
Yep.
Or SCOTUS could throw out Texas and allow CA as in CA the public voted for it. The Courts really REALLY do not like to reverse what the voters have voted for.
Like Roe v. Wade?
From 1970 to 2024, there were 65 abortion-related ballot measures, and 44 (68%) of these had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-life. Voters approved 12 (27%) and rejected 32 (73%) of these 44 ballot measures. The other 21 abortion-related ballot measures had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights. Voters approved 15 (71%) and rejected six (29%).
Texas cannot use its new congressional map for the 2026 election and will instead need to stick with the lines passed in 2021, a three-judge panel ruled Tuesday.
The decision is a major blow for Republicans, in Texas and nationally, who pushed through this unusual mid-decade redistricting at the behest of President Donald Trump. They were hoping the new map would yield control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts — up from the 25 they currently hold — and help protect the narrow GOP majority in the U.S. House.
“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote in the ruling striking down the new lines. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
Nelson “Ha ha!”.
Whoa. I was not expecting that (even though the court’s perception is probably accurate). Republicans throwing up their lunches and pointing their fingers and screeching “Unfair! Unfair!” in 3, 2, 1 …
Appeal to the Supremes even faster… wonder which way they’ll bounce.
The difference here is the CA got the voters to approve, and from what I saw the CA re=apportionment isnt racially motivated, IMHO.
But yeah, they will appeal of course. However, those appeals may take more than a year.
I believe SCOTUS can choose to set aside the lower court verdict without hearing it, as a “temporary” measure until they have time to hear it. Or they could refuse to hear it. Those are the two most likely outcomes of an appeal, it seems to me.
Also, Republicans scream “Unfair” about any adverse decision or event, even if there is nothing else to compare it to. The writing on the wall was that they were going to lose their majority next time, that’s why they did the Texas thing. The two events together, though, account for a swing of 10 seats potentially, which could make a big difference.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article312968016.html
That helps explain why CA 50 may hold even if Texas Gerrymandering goes away. That would cause texas and other MAGA heads to explode.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that Cal 50 will be overturned, at least I haven’t seen it. Yes, Trump’s forces have sued, but their basis is typically tissue-thin.
Per the article:
It originally included a line saying Prop. 50’s map would only be operative if “Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map that takes effect after August 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2031” that is not required by a court. That language was struck from the final version.
Quelle surprise.
In theory, good for them.
Especially, given the makeup of the current Supreme Court, I’m a bit skeptical of the legality of the measure. Anything short of an Amendment is probably a paper tiger but I’d be willing to believe that King and Padilla might be fooling themselves into thinking that it would pass muster.
Given the radically different racial demographics of the two parties, it seems ridiculous to argue that some bright line exists between “partisan” and “racial” gerrymanding. Trying to do either will inevitably do both.
This appears to be essentially what they have now done. From here:
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan pushed by President Trump likely discriminates on the basis of race.
The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map favorable to Republicans to be used in the midterm elections.”
If SCOTUS decides to take the case, it will be too late to print the ballots by the time the decision is announced. Legal stall tactics again.
So, we have the original re-districting plan in Texas that was signed into law, then we have the recent federal court ruling setting aside that re-districting plan because it was based on racial rather than political factors (???), now we have Alito temporarily blocking that lower court ruling “for the next few days” while the Supremes decide whether to a) allow the lower court ruling to stand by refusing to hear the appeal, or b) hear the appeal. In case a) presumably the re-districting plan will have to be rejected; in case b) the re-districting plan will be in effect pending the hearing of the appeal, which means it will be in place for 2026 because the Texas primary is in March or so.
I just had to type that out for my own clarification, because I just can’t keep track otherwise.
Is there a case c), where the Supremes hold the lower court ruling in temporary abeyance because it is by then too close to the primaries, and so let it take effect after the 2026 elections?
AFAIK, this isn’t that type of case. It’s a rare case in their mandatory appellate jurisdiction, so they’ve already taken it, automatically, whether they want it or not. I don’t think they have to do the whole fuss of oral arguments if they don’t want, though.
I believe the mandatory review of a three judge panel only comes into play after a final judgment. So far, the panel has only issued a preliminary injunction, so I think the court has discretion.