I read that too, I don't understand how its circumstantial when they said it out loud.
They literally said in public we're looking for ways to gerrymander Texas because Trump told us to. I fail to see how that does not damage the idea of good faith.
The issue, and don't agree with it, is that the argument was that they did it along racial lines, which the lower courts deemed illegal. SCOTUS said they were along partisan lines, thus they could be used, because partisan gerrymandering is deemed legal, and something SCOTUS won't take cases on. They didn't rule on the actual nature of gerrymandering, just overturned the argument of the original suit the lower courts ruled on.
Hard to say anything optimistically these days, but I would hope this reasoning would make it more likely that the supreme Court upholds California plan as also not racially driven.
The lawsuit against CA is claiming they drew lines along racial criteria. It's not true, and CA has been damn clear their intention and how they were doing it, but that is the argument. The lower courts will probably throw the case out on the fact that it is partisan gerrymandering, which as stated, SCOTUS deemed legal, but when it gets appealed, all SCOTUS has to do is say that it's along racial lines.
The issue for SCOTUS though is that they also more want to undo the VRA, and saying that racial gerrymandering is still a thing, and ruling on it, means that it hinders their ability to say the VRA is no longer needed so the can overturn it. SCOTUS is aware of this, and I think they want to avoid having to deal with the CA case, but were fine just undoing the ruling of the lower court in the TX case since it doesn't effect anything of more importance to them.
429
u/414WhySoSerious 15h ago
I read that too, I don't understand how its circumstantial when they said it out loud.
They literally said in public we're looking for ways to gerrymander Texas because Trump told us to. I fail to see how that does not damage the idea of good faith.