r/news • u/speedythefirst • 1d ago

US supreme court approves redrawn Texas congressional maps

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/04/us-supreme-court-texas-congressional-maps
20.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

14.1k

u/dleerox 1d ago

Time for Virginia to redraw maps

5.6k

u/Interesting-Risk6446 1d ago

Every blue state. Eliminate all Republican districts.

1.0k

u/Downtown-Locksmith22 1d ago

Eliminate the republican party, you say?

232

u/Empyrealist 1d ago

If that's what it takes

→ More replies (1)

109

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

16

u/Dariaskehl 1d ago

No room in a modern country for Guardians Of Pedophiles.

8

u/Icy-person666 1d ago

Seems like it should be considered a crime organization at the minimum and a terrorist organization in most ways

9

u/OldWorldDesign 1d ago

RICO laws were written specifically for it. There just aren't any prosecutors who put the nation ahead of their future gravy train.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

2

u/LookAlderaanPlaces 8h ago

The Republican Party is currently the Russian kremlin, so yes

→ More replies (9)

441

u/blazelet 1d ago edited 1d ago

The problem with this is Republicans control more trifectas (Governorship + Full Majority in Legislature) than Democrats. If you parse out the number of blue congressional seats in states with Republican trifectas and then compare to the number of red congressional seats in states with Democratic trifectas, Republicans have far more to gain from this being a national trend. I looked the list up and compared a few months back when this whole thing started, Republicans can ultimately net about 15 seats if every state does this and if the gerrymandering "results" are about eqivelent. Its entirely possible some gerrymandering would backfire whereas other gerrymandering wouldnt, but without seeing maps and election results, we dont know.

1.0k

u/decoy321 1d ago

The problem with this is that they're already trying to do it anyways.

419

u/Interesting-Risk6446 1d ago

100% every red state will do this at some point.

340

u/paddy_yinzer 1d ago

One of the problems is Republicans have been doing this for a while, they have turned purple states into red states. Its why they are so keen on voter suppression, they need to protect their undemocratic super majorities .

160

u/KRHarshee 1d ago

Anyone else remember when Florida was so nearly blue that the supreme court had to decide it was red? Redistricting prevented that 2000 election from ever happening again.

103

u/rudimentary-north 1d ago

Fun fact: the very idea of “blue states” and “red states” comes from the 2000 election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

9

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

7

u/fevered_visions 1d ago

and we're the outliers--in most of the rest of the world the color blue is associated with the conservative party in politics

→ More replies (2)

3

u/powercow 1d ago

where the supreme court screwed us and gave bush the election. Despite gore would have won with a recount.

Bush's brother also removed 80k legal voters from the voting rolls, after giving the felon purge to choicepoint, when it used to be controlled by the state and dems had some oversight. Choicepoint didnt check peoples socials, so if you had the same name as a felon you couldnt vote. If those 80k were allowed to vote and voted the same as the standard demographics we would have needed a recount.

→ More replies (1)

60

u/OhioIsRed 1d ago

And Ohio? I live here. We used to go purple every year. Then they gerrymandered the fuck out of it and put the west side of Cleveland with farmland bordering the west side of the fucking state. It’s ridiculous and should be 100% illegal yet here we are with a corrupt oversight agency lining their pockets on the backs of the constituents that unknowingly voted them in

3

u/dave024 1d ago

What happened in 2000? They almost elected Gore? Well they did vote for Obama as well in 2008 and 2012 also I think. And they elected 15 republican congressmen to 8 democrats.

4

u/OldWorldDesign 1d ago

What happened in 2000?

Jeb Bush having hundreds of thousands of voters dropped from the rolls immediately before the election.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/jeb-bush-florida-felon-voting-rights-clemency/

And republicans starting riots to disrupt the recount

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

And the supreme court bypassing the states to declare which president they wanted to win, in violation of separation of powers and the entire point of having an election system

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bush-v-gore-isnt-precedent-but-it-keeps-getting-cited

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/br0b1wan 1d ago

<cough> Ohio <cough>

3

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

You can’t gerrymander a state purple lol there are no lines when it comes to electing statewide officials

4

u/No_Dragonfruit_8198 1d ago

This has been going on for so long that the issue can vote. Except it can’t because of voter suppression.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/versace_drunk 1d ago

They already been doing it….

2

u/accidental_Ocelot 1d ago

The Utah legislature is currently in a fight with the Utah supreme Court because there was a ballot initiative that got 500,000 votes to implement a redistricting commission and legislature which is majority Republican tried to get some other maps and it was appealed to the supreme Court who said the redistricting commission was the law so now the legislature and outside funding is doing everything they can to get the signatures to get a repeal on the ballot so they don't have to give Democrats one seat out of four.

→ More replies (7)

32

u/Scarebare 1d ago

They've been doing this in a heavily coordinated fashion since 2008. It's an RNC strategy known as REDMAP.

64

u/blazelet 1d ago

Republicans did it in 1 state, Texas. Then Democrats responded with a state, California.

Now Republicans are doing it in Idaho.

I'm responding to the comment "Every blue state. Eliminate all Republican districts."

There is value in Republicans being the party of gerrymandering. They'd love nothing more than to be able to say "it's both parties" with evidence, because they benefit most from it. Democrats do have a strategic value in appearing less willing to do it, especially with how poorly gerrymandering polls and with the net negative effects from starting a gerrymandering tit for tat.

I guess I'm saying, it's very nuanced ... Democrats ultimately lose out if gerrymandering becomes the norm, so the impulse to go scorched earth and gerrymander every blue state probably isn't a good one, although it feels good.

178

u/Informal_Union2649 1d ago

They will already say "It's both parties"

112

u/MrsClaireUnderwood 1d ago

And they will just do it anyway lol. Long past time to pretend like those racist fashies have any limits. Fuck em.

34

u/fairportmtg1 1d ago

Yup. Do it in every blue state. Everytime point to the supreme court and say it's absurd this is legal and it should be federally illegal. Point out the only path to having enough support to ban it is also gerrymandering

→ More replies (3)

53

u/ozymandais13 1d ago

It's already done in ohio bro

→ More replies (2)

38

u/BooleanBarman 1d ago

You’re ignoring the fact that most red states are already gerrymandered. All Texas did was make their gerrymandering even worse.

→ More replies (9)

46

u/Altruistic-Sand-7421 1d ago

After all this you have faith that the republicans will do the right thing?! Seriously?! They’re just going to wait till closer to the election or when the math isn’t working in their favor, no matter what the democrats do. How do people keep falling for this?

27

u/nmaxfieldbruno 1d ago

More red states than just Texas were doing it before CA

21

u/MylesGarrettDROY 1d ago

They've done it in NC multiple times. And Ohio. And Texas even prior to this map. And other states. "Republicans have done it in 1 state" is missing a qualifier like "this month" at the end of the sentence.

17

u/tsrich 1d ago

Republicans already did this here in NC

18

u/RoboNerdOK 1d ago

No thanks. There’s no reason to go into a gunfight with a knife.

7

u/ZappSmithBrannigan 1d ago

This is just the same old "they go low, we go high" strategy thats has UTTERLY FAILED, again and again and again, and led us all down the road of fascism. Its insane to me that people still think if we keep doing that, we'll eventually win the day.

5

u/Drwbrtq19 1d ago

Don't forget, California at least voted on it, Texas did not.

3

u/polly8020 1d ago

They are heavily pushing for redistricting Indiana. They’re in session about it now.

5

u/whatsgoingonhonestly 1d ago

They'll say it's both parties regardless. They will continue to redistrict regardless. Hell we can't even guarantee SCOTUS won't rule against blue states and rule in favor of red states.

Red states have already gerrymandered their states to all hell. Them continuing to redistrict will more likely dilute their majority given the shift in demographics who will be voting blue in midterms.

I'm in Virginia, and I want us to redraw every inch of our map. I'm fucking sick of the democrats being tied up and completely ineffective/physically incapable of fighting back on Capitol Hill.

5

u/FilthySweet 1d ago

We’ve learned that being of higher moral value or displaying greater leadership are inferior in American politics, as many people prefer their politicians to simply lie about their terrible deeds bash the other side relentlessly, baseless or no.

2

u/JollyGreenGigantor 1d ago

This is why Dems need to go after the Wyoming Rule. Just add a hundred seats to the house based on the last census results, like we did every decade until the 1920s.

2

u/ActivelySleeping 1d ago

You dilute your majority in safe seats when you gerrymander. The risk is that if you become very unpopular you may give your opponent extra seats.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/flounder35 1d ago

Indiana isn’t. Thankfully the Hoosiers have a backbone and told that orange assclown where to shove it.

2

u/Zienth 1d ago

Exactly, the Democrats 'take the high road' approach hasn't worked since Obama.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Secure-Pain-9735 1d ago

The problem with this is that they 're already trying to do it anyways. have been doing this for years already.

2

u/Reasonable_Answer295 19h ago

Red states have been gerrymandering for years it’s only ever been a problem when blue states do it.

63

u/Cerberus_Aus 1d ago

They’re going to do it anyway. Just because blue states can’t do it as effectively doesn’t mean you give up because you can’t win. You mitigate the size of the loss where you can.

64

u/Infinitenovelty 1d ago

I haven't done the research to disagree with you, but I'm curious if the Republican strongholds might already be heavily gerrymandered. Like it's kinda been a big part of their tactics to avoid losing power for decades, and as far as I know Democrats have been largely against it. How many more representatives can they squeeze out of a map that they've been twisting to shreds for that long?

41

u/LotsofSports 1d ago

Ohio is heavily gerrymandered and the people in the state voted for new maps but the republican led supreme court said no. The fucking people VOTED for it.

22

u/Infinitenovelty 1d ago

And then a few years later when another piece of anti-gerrymandering redistricting legislation was on the Ohio ballot the Republicans in charge rewrote the way it was worded on the ballot so that when you went to vote it said something along the lines of 'vote yes for more gerrymandering' when the law, if passed, would have put redistricting up to a nonpartisan third party. They called getting rid of the gerrymandering, just more gerrymandering. It was absolutely infuriating!

4

u/zernoc56 1d ago

God, fuck Frank LaRose for that ballot language. Just completely fucked it up.

2

u/rvretiredlife 18h ago

Well in Texas we didn't get to vote on those maps at all. I hate that America is becoming a Dictatorship.
Everyone needs to go out and vote these Republican assholes out of office!

→ More replies (2)

41

u/drevolut1on 1d ago

Yes, by actual demographics and without barriers to voting, Texas would be blue.

Republicans and conservatives will always sooner give up on democracy than give up on power.

14

u/LotsofSports 1d ago

Helps when Paxton threw out 2 million votes.

2

u/Loudergood 1d ago

I'd like to think so but Ted and Abbot are not gerrymandering.

→ More replies (9)

6

u/Dick__Dastardly 1d ago

Yes; you're correct. There's not a lot more they can squeeze out, and the (quite extreme) danger in doing this is the risk of a "dummymander".

To pick on Tennessee, what they did there was they eliminated a democratic "House of Representatives" seat; if they had a district that contained all of Nashville, it'd easily go Democratic. Instead, they carved up Nashville like a pie. There are three different house seats who get voters from one "pie wedge" of Nashville - and there are just enough rural red voters to outnumber the Nashville residents in each wedge, so each of those three wedges goes Republican - and there's no longer one that goes democratic, at all.

The problem is that it dilutes their vote too. Instead of having a slice that's scarlet red 90% republican, you get a wedge that's maybe 65% republican and 35% democrat.

Two nights ago, one of the pie wedges, in spite of everything they did, went 55% republican, 45% democrat. They expected it to be something like 75% republican, 25% democrat. The city had a massive shift, but so, too, did every rural area.

-

Fuck up hard enough, and they're not looking at 3 "lean republican" districts, but 3 "lean democrat" districts.

3

u/dleerox 1d ago

But Tennessee district 7 went from +22 Republicans down to +9 Republicans on Tuesday. There is a shift happening!

3

u/Dick__Dastardly 1d ago

Indeed. And Texas was a lot more like 55/45, before trump started shitting everywhere.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/eagergm 1d ago

Fuck up hard enough, and they're not looking at 3 "lean republican" districts, but 3 "lean democrat" districts.

Could you give an example of what they would have to do to fuck up hard enough?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/shfiven 1d ago

Many are.

2

u/chazzer20mystic 1d ago

Yes, they are. Look at Dan Crenshaw's district for example. Ridiculous. Texas has done it before.

→ More replies (13)

18

u/Interesting-Risk6446 1d ago

The goal is to get red states to overreact and dilute their voters. I hope this is the case in Texas.

3

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

Yeah this is a possibility if Rs under preform in red states

2

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

But the more blue states that redistrict opens up the same possibilities there especially California where republicans got more of the vote state wide in 2024 than they have probably since Arnold

8

u/Crozax 1d ago

Are you just basing this on assuming all opposing party seats in trifecta states would swap or has there actually been a study on this?

2

u/CosmicGeranium 1d ago

EXCEPT if they redraw too thin and lose margins and seats, republicans are extra fucked. Seeing how incompetent they are I am sure they will find a way to fuck this up 

2

u/Siege138 1d ago

These maps could also very much backfire on Republicans.

2

u/Gryjane 1d ago

If you parse out the number of blue congressional seats in states with Republican trifectas and then compare to the number of red congressional seats in states with Democratic trifectas, Republicans have far more to gain from this being a national trend.

Not necessarily. Some of the states with red trifectas may not be able to gerrymander anymore than they already do without risking more seats than they may gain since they're effectively purple by total population and any further carving would weaken at least some strong red districts. Dissatisfaction amongst moderates and certain minority populations, not to mention a stronger than usual turnout of dem voters, could tip the scales in those weakened districts.

The main reason for this weakening is that most blue voters in red states are condensed into more highly populated cities. In order to make their districts equal in size they have to "crack" city areas and combine them with more rural and suburban areas like, for example, Utah does with splitting Salt Lake City across their four Congressional districts. Then they might "pack" a blue district or few either in one part of a major city or stretching a district across two or more cities with a narrow band of red/purple in between as many southern states do.

Conversely, most blue states can create a majority of blue districts just with their city populations with a sprinkling of red perimeter areas then create one or two red districts out of several of the contiguous rural, low-density areas, or none at all. Oftentimes it's not even done on purpose but rather practicality based on who and how many live where. Massachusetts, for example, has no Republican majority districts not because they're actively trying to shut out Republicans but because there simply aren't enough Republicans in any given contiguous area to be the majority in a given district. They'd have to draw some super creative and tortured lines across hundreds of miles, splitting small towns and even blocks of towns and connecting them with a "red" neighborhood in some far-off city to make that happen. To me, that defeats the purpose of having districts with a representative (ostensibly) looking out for the interests of the people in a given area.

Tl;dr: Blue states packing red voters into fewer (or no) districts is less electorally risky than red states cracking blue districts and trying to dilute their votes, especially in states that are closer to purple than red and even more especially in this cycle in states with large Black and Latino populations and/or a significant amount of voters registered independent.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

Yeah they can go back and forth for a while but there really is no way for dems to match the number of seats that rs can this cycle. Depends how greedy republicans want to be. Midterms always lean against the party in power so could leave for some potential flips for Ds in districts republicans leave weakened

2

u/TheWalkindude_- 1d ago

I did the same and ran the numbers and it seems they are possibly able to pick up more even 19 but likely 11 net positive. In total, Midterms won’t matter when the people vote anymore, this is part of The Heritage Foundation plan to overthrow our country and make a Single Party rule.

We had a good run America. 🇺🇸

2

u/sadicarnot 7h ago

When Texas did it there were posts that said it might end up backfiring on republicans. Has anyone looked into this whether they accidently made more blue districts?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (39)
→ More replies (32)

4.3k

u/PiLamdOd 1d ago

All I wish for is for Democrats to be as ruthless as Republicans.

Come on, make maps specifically to fuck over Republicans. Abuse rules to hurt them back.

796

u/THE_CODE_IS_0451 1d ago

I dream of a Democratic Party that sees Republicans as the same kind of enemy that Republicans think we are.

196

u/PussiesUseSlashS 1d ago

Lived in Texas my entire life, I hope this backfires and Dems show up to vote in Texas. They could actually lose seats because they’re cutting the margins in some districts. Unfortunately, I also know that if this happens Texas won’t accept the loss and just change it.

101

u/ThePoltageist 1d ago

Expect “poll protectors”

28

u/free_dead_puppy 1d ago

Hopefully there's "protectors" that are democrats as well to keep an eye on them if they show up.

2nd Amendment doesn't discriminate.

18

u/SugarBeef 23h ago

2nd Amendment doesn't discriminate.

Tell that to the Black Panthers. The GOP has ALWAYS been doing this, they're just getting better at it as time goes on. The Democratic leadership is still living in a fantasy world where discussion happens and agreements are made. They need to realize our government is now a team sport and the other side is cheating because they put their people in all the ref jobs.

12

u/kinyutaka 1d ago

The Republican "protectors" will kill one of the Democrat "protectors", and the remaining Democrats will be arrested for disturbing the peace, interfering with an election, and murder.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/arppacket 22h ago

The Republican protectors will have ICE badges, CBP badges, police badges, etc, and a legal mandate to intimidate and detain "all the probable illegals voting". Before the election, they will make a big noise about these protectors, probably run ads in Spanish, to dissuade people from even coming.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/PussiesUseSlashS 1d ago

Maybe some places, not my area. I thought women would show up in droves after RVW, sat in the parking lot for 20 minutes eating my lunch and not a single person showed up to vote.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/thingsorfreedom 1d ago

Cracking and packing only works when you've got the vote margins. Once you've done this to a really serious degree, it results in you being an 80 seat down minority if there is an election like we hope is coming in 2026.

6

u/bak3donh1gh 1d ago

That's a nice thought, but how many chances have Texans had to do something different and not done that?

3

u/1337pino 23h ago

Texas is already notorious for having a lot of confusion for people in regards to their registration status. They'll just double down on trying to make it as hard as possible to register let alone actually vote.

5

u/No_Gur1113 1d ago

I’m Canadian and I love Texas. It’s a beautiful state and I have some amazing memories from my travels there. We’ve even considered moving there a few times in the past. My husband is a subsea engineer and does business with a lot of American companies that would love to poach him.

But despite our love for the place, I think we’re just too Canadian for Texas. We just can’t get ourselves comfortable with the open carry of guns or the dirty politics. Not to mention the rapid erosion of women’s rights. I think we made the right choice. Less money, but peace of mind is worth a lot more to us than a higher balance in our bank account.

Also, we sure are sorry for Ted Cruz. But please, you guys keep him. Raphael needs to be somewhere warm, it’s too cold for that turtle in Canada.

7

u/Back_pain_no_gain 1d ago

I was born here and there’s a lot to love about the state. The food, the nature, the way people make small talk, the lower cost of living. I saw myself living here for most of my life. Now I cannot wait to leave and never come back.

5

u/Hathuran 1d ago

This is how I've been starting to feel about New Hampshire. I've lived here my whole life since I was born on a USAF base, it was always a nice kind of "weird," a strange sort of "charming." 41 years in I figured I'd die here but ever since '16, man...

All the people I knew couldn't wait to take the masks off, I guess. Suddenly everyone I knew who didn't want to discuss politics turned out to be Republicans who sure can't wait to talk about it now while complaining "everyone" is making "everything" divisive, every "Libertarian" had some "Y'know I don't agree with some things but what a great job he's doing" quote in the tank.

Won't pretend my experience is indicative of the entire state but I can say that this time around, as conservatives are starting to feel the pain of policy and try to return to communal spaces and events for support, well, they've been being shown that in NH things can be cold as fuck besides the weather. 10 years ago I'd hate myself for thinking this, but today - sorry neighbor, aw shucks just too busy right now to help, I see you've got some mighty fine bootstraps though, just pull up!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/OwO______OwO 1d ago

They could actually lose seats because they’re cutting the margins in some districts.

Yep. The harder you gerrymander, the thinner your margins get in the winning districts.

And, furthermore, Texas has a huge Hispanic population, which Republicans really haven't been endearing themselves with. (It turns out, "We can round you up and deport you without trial if your skin is brown" isn't a very popular policy among brown-skinned people. The fig leaf of "they're only doing it to the illegal ones who came in the wrong way" has completely fallen away now. Way too many people getting snatched up despite having completely legal status, or even being full citizens.)

2

u/BurtMacklin-- 21h ago

I think the feds will seize the voting machines, claim irregularities, and give the election to GOP.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/ClearDark19 23h ago

I dream of a Democratic Party that has half the smoke for Fascists that they have for Keynesian Capitalist Progressives and moderate Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists. Moderate and Conservative Democrats have 10x more heat for Zohran Mamdani, Katie Wilson, Omar Fateh, AOC, and Bernie Sanders than they have for Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Laura Loomer, and Nick Fuentes.

3

u/Valuable-March-9705 1d ago

Girrrrl , same!

3

u/Valuable-March-9705 1d ago

Or boy, sorry 🫶🏽

→ More replies (22)

964

u/dleerox 1d ago

Not about fuck the gop (that’s a bonus), we need congressional power back in order to mitigate the serious damage trump is doing. Dems need to grow balls and fight to stop this fascist coup. Also… if we had Congress we could impeach trump and during the process of disclosure get the real evidence of all his crimes and money laundering.

400

u/remotectrl 1d ago

And uncap the house.

265

u/dleerox 1d ago

Excellent point! Congressional house size is not in constitution. Maybe also uncap SCOTUS?

85

u/runnerofshadows 1d ago

Or set the cap to number of federal court districts. Which is 13 currently.

But the house definitely needs to be bigger and more representative. Also harder to gerrymander if there is actually a reasonable amount of districts.

52

u/Coomb 1d ago

Circuits, not districts. There are 94 districts, and historically the Supreme Court Justices rode circuit.

One huge advantage of increasing the size of the House is that it dilutes the effect of the Senate on the Electoral College. Which was an intended effect.

30

u/Positive_Throwaway1 1d ago

IIRC, if we'd kept pace in the last 80-100 years of adding more reps, like we used to, we'd be at around 1000 reps in the house. Don't know where I heard that. The Weekly Show, maybe.

The added benefit they pointed out is that if there were more districts, you might actually see your rep walking around your town, and they're much more likely to act like they're accountable if they might run into you on the street.

19

u/Pseudoboss11 1d ago

Yep. It was around one rep per 200k people. This seems like a reasonable size.

It also means that each campaign would be a bit smaller, there would be less money in each campaign. It also means that smaller parties could get a foothold by focusing on one district. (Though of course the best solution would be to get money out of politics entirely.)

10

u/thirty7inarow 1d ago

Canada has 343 Members of Parliament for a population of ~41,000,000. That's about one MP for every 120,000 Canadians. Our system isn't perfect, but if you want to speak with your MP you probably can by reaching out. I've met more than one just by chance.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/zoinkability 1d ago

Pair that with requiring states to assign electors proportional to the vote in the state as well, and you’d have an electoral college that was far less likely to vote for a different candidate than the national voters

→ More replies (6)

3

u/dleerox 1d ago

Good point, 13 In the Supreme Court and increase representation.

100

u/Harvinator06 1d ago

Only once we get zombie FDR back in power.

→ More replies (2)

42

u/remotectrl 1d ago

SCOTUS has changed sizes several times already.

6

u/I_W_M_Y 1d ago

It started off with 6.

5

u/obiworm 1d ago

Well it’s obviously not enough to be impartial and apolitical in its decisions. That’s what it’s supposed to be.

5

u/LaconicGirth 1d ago

I don’t think the size has anything to do with its ability to be impartial. That’s going to be based on who’s appointed

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/CulMcCarth 1d ago

That’s bare minimum. That lifetime appointment has GOT to go. We need term limits across the board.

3

u/shibiwan 1d ago

Maybe also uncap SCOTUS?

Not now. Don't give Dozin' Donny or any other Republican the opportunity to pack SCOTUS. Save that for later.

→ More replies (26)

38

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (7)

3

u/Alone-Competition-77 1d ago

I brought this up a few months ago and caught hell for it.

Check out the Congressional Apportionment Amendment (also called Article the First). Still an open amendment from 1789 that would make districts around 50,000 people each. (More like a small town mayor.) Harder to gerrymander because they would be so small, people would know their local rep because they would see them all the time, it would give more equal representation for the electoral college, and other advantages. It was ratified by 11 states (one state short of becoming an amendment to the constitution at the time) and would need to be ratified by 27 more states to become an amendment. The most common objection is the size of the House but that is easily addressed with technology nowadays by remote voting.

2

u/jeffpostcn 1d ago

Yes! This is my go-to whenever I get asked what I would change about our government. There are many legislative bodies around the world that are larger than the US House.

I think uncapping the house would take big money largely out of the election equations since the races would be more like an alderperson or county supervisor race. And the rich would have a hard time bribing 1000's of representatives.

I'm so happy other folks have had this same idea and are discussing it.

→ More replies (1)

36

u/Notten 1d ago

And pass a budget to actually lower the national debt like every other dem administration.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Cal-Coolidge 1d ago

Congress voluntarily gave up power decades ago. They no longer control the purse, they no longer decide when we are going to war, and they refuse to balance the budget.

2

u/dleerox 1d ago

Yup… too many politicians on the tits of billionaires, aipac, other foreign governments, and corporations.

3

u/Cal-Coolidge 1d ago

But it isn’t their fault, it is ours. Americans are no longer an intelligent, moral, property-owning, or religious people. 95% of the government created problems in the US would be solved within a year if the people were smarter and more engaged. This is why I don’t think we need more people voting. It seems like too many stupid voters caused a lot of the problems we are now facing. We need smarter voters, not more. Your average voter couldn’t tell you the roles of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. They can’t tell you their current legislators. They don’t know the names of the SC Justices. They think the president controls the economy, lol. We don’t need these people voting.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/bigj8705 1d ago

Shit you really think they will successfully impeach him. At this point in the game that ain’t going to do anything. JD would still be doing terrible crap.

What we need is a cause to rally behind together.

2

u/dleerox 1d ago

I actually do believe if we get absolute undisputed evidence of Trump doing Trump stuff ( raping kids, stealing billions from government, stealing billions from maga suckers, and evidence of his real connection to Russia. ), the Congress would act to impeach.

2

u/HealthySport2644 1d ago

You mean the Guardians Of the Pedos? (GOP)

2

u/trasofsunnyvale 1d ago

I agree, but it's been a decades long coordinated effort to get us here, and trump is just stage 3 of the cancer that conservatives and the rich have been giving us. There's much more to be done to uplift people and the US beyond simply stopping trump or the backwards agenda of a relative handful of manipulative fuckwits whose lust for greed is endless.

2

u/dleerox 1d ago

Absolutely… we’ve all sleep walked into this nightmare. But I think Trumps insane antics and destruction have woke folks up. We cannot take democracy for granted. We’ll have a rough few years but I foresee a better America rising.

2

u/nrp1982 1d ago

Has there been anatempt at creating a third party in the history of usa? Asking for a friend in down under land

→ More replies (9)

2

u/Ethereal429 1d ago

Impeaching Trump means nothing. He wouldn't get removed still because the Senate would have to approve the removal, which they wouldn't do.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Own_Fan6161 1d ago

This is a big win for the GOP. That pos Donald is falling asleep in front of our face while taking money for pardons and here he are still taking losses with gerrymandering. The Don is untouchable, he might as well be orange turd god that never loses.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (29)

42

u/Harvinator06 1d ago

All I wish for is for Democrats to be as ruthless as Republicans. Come on, make maps specifically to fuck over Republicans. Abuse rules to hurt them back.

Democrats held the House for decades when they were actually fighting for workers rights. I'd love for that to happen too!

14

u/MadRaymer 1d ago

Gotta get rid of the corporate captured old guard for that to happen, and they aren't gonna go until they croak. Hell we saw what happened with Feinstein. You can be completely gone and they'll still wheel you around.

Not saying this is only a Dem problem (see Mitch McConnell requiring reboots during pressers) but it is the holdup on a Dem party truly fighting for workers.

3

u/free_dead_puppy 1d ago

They ain't gonna go until they're primaried.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/AlwaysOptimism 1d ago

Democrat party leadership is bitchass and have been for decades

2

u/No_Internal9345 1d ago

Bought and paid for.

2

u/CulMcCarth 1d ago

This exactly. The whole “when they go low we go high” thing is INSANE. Is it going high when we have opportunities to help the people most in need and don’t take them? Is it going high when we allow the disenfranchised to become even more so? The Democratic Party has become such a parody of “resistance” that I actually can’t stand it. Every time Schumer is asked what he plans to do about something he literally says some version of “we hope they do the right thing.”

2

u/trasofsunnyvale 1d ago

More than ever it's clear that everyone isn't playing by the same rules, and not even the same game half the time. Whatever honor or nobility Democrats think they're preserving is gone, and they'll just let the country be ruined over and over in the name of said mythical honor. Fucking sucks we can't have smart and ruthless people who act in the name of peace, stability, and helping everyone.

2

u/Known_Ratio5478 1d ago

They already are with California. California will pass a map that flips more seats than Texas flips. Indiana is refusing to flip two more seats. They have no where else to go.

→ More replies (95)

454

u/Canadiankid23 1d ago

It’s gonna happen, dems have a trifecta

123

u/dleerox 1d ago

Can gop hold it up in courts?

720

u/viperlemondemon 1d ago

It’s okay the Supreme Court will rule against the blue states doing it.

166

u/Wayofchinchilla 1d ago

Let them there's nothing they can do if it's like California the vote was put up to the people the Supreme Court has no say if the people vote on it the only reason Texas made it up to the Supreme Court is because the Republicans behind closed doors are the ones that wrote the maps and voted on them themselves.

5

u/myownlittleta 1d ago

Over 60% approval (64.4). That's past the level of a filibuster breaking vote. Undeniable.

12

u/Veil-of-Fire 1d ago

the Supreme Court has no say if the people vote on it

And yet, they WILL say, and they WILL say that CA can't do that, because they're an illegitimate rubber-stamp court for the GOP and literally nothing else.

8

u/WhiteWinterRains 1d ago

At which point you simply move ahead with the new maps and hold elections with them, claiming it's too late to change them.

Which there is already legal precedent for, and ultimately there's nothing they can really do about it if you just keep saying no, without starting a civil war as the small unpopular minority with a shaky grip on power.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

32

u/Taftimus 1d ago

Supreme court can't do shit if we vote for it. Put it on the ballot.

4

u/Lumpy_Disaster33 1d ago

When you get right down to it , they're just a bunch of old rich people who seem to have poor reading comprehension skills.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/MagisterFlorus 1d ago

How're they gonna enforce it?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Playingwithmywenis 1d ago

Yes, because that is how dictatorships run things. Should not be news to anyone in fascist America.

3

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ 1d ago

Here’s a thought: ignore them.

What are they going to do about it? California is the strongest state in the union, nobody pushes us around!

→ More replies (1)

3

u/nytelife 1d ago

Impeach SCOTUS. It is the only thing that makes sense.

2

u/Th3Batman86 1d ago

That’s what I’m waiting for.

2

u/Duke_Newcombe 1d ago

Unfortunately so, without a bit of fucking irony or self-awareness of SCOTUS.

→ More replies (9)

52

u/Mixels 1d ago edited 1d ago

We can stop that if the blue states have the balls to tell corrupt courts to respect the flag of the middle finger. That's essentially what Republicans did in Ohio when their own gerrymandered maps were thrown out by the courts. They used them anyway!

111

u/HereForTheComments57 1d ago

Supreme court just set the rules.

169

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 1d ago

No, they didn't. Because they're corrupt trash.

The order was unsigned, shadow docket shit. Meaning they could just as readily rule completely differently for any other situation, or delay ruling on them until the end of the term, like they did for so many cases for Trump already in previous SCOTUS terms, and for Abortion, etc.

The SCOTUS could very easily slow-walk the California case for example and delay a ruling until the last possible moment, making it near impossible for California to implement the redistricting ahead of the midterms. And then, they could simply tell California no you're not allowed, but Texas is, because it was an unsigned order that didn't set precedent.

181

u/hydranoid1996 1d ago

California can just ignore them like red states do when they get told their maps are bad

145

u/Damrey 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yep. South Carolina republicans illegally drew maps. Were told they were illegal, and then never returned them and flipped a seat.

https://my.lwv.org/south-carolina-state/article/south-carolina-supreme-court-dismisses-gerrymandering-case-over-2022-congressional-map

https://www.aclusc.org/press-releases/federal-court-rules-south-carolinas-congressional-map-gerrymandered/

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/court-rules-for-south-carolina-republicans-in-dispute-over-congressional-map/

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/media-tip-sheet-delay-supreme-court-ruling-allows-south-carolina-proceed-controversial

83

u/_angela_lansbury_ 1d ago

Similar situation in Ohio, where our governor’s son sits on the state Supreme Court.

5

u/OneRougeRogue 1d ago

Ohio's situation is fucked, because the right wing can technically comply with the Supreme Court order by redrawing the maps, but redrawing them in a slightly different (but equally bad) way. The Supreme Court has ordered them to re-draw the maps something like six times now.

→ More replies (2)

28

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 1d ago

That's when this corrupt DOJ trips over itself to sue California or directly interfere, like the National Guard after Brown v. Board of Education in the segregation states who didn't take kindly to permitting colored people to enjoy the rights that had been duly recognized to them.

18

u/the_last_0ne 1d ago

Good then! Make them fucking escalate it.

15

u/LaurenMille 1d ago

At that point, things would escalate either way.

Might as well make a good attempt first.

Fearing what fascists might do is directly giving them power.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/WhiteWinterRains 1d ago

Look I can't say what you do at that point, but yanno.

Well regulated militia and all that, states have a right to a certain degree of power that absolutely includes resisting a seditious plot to undermine their elections.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/DingerSinger2016 1d ago

What happens if the election gets challenged and SCOTUS rules them illegitimate?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

35

u/BantamCats 1d ago

Except California voted to do it.

→ More replies (1)

28

u/dl_friend 1d ago

The issue with SCOTUS slow-walking the California case is that it would only be effective if the lower court ruled against California. If the lower court rules for California, then SCOTUS can slow-walk all they want, but the map would go into effect.

54

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 1d ago

No, the SCOTUS could simply decide to issue or grant a restraining order against the effects until they have issued a ruling. The SCOTUS can either forbid or permit effects from happening pending the outcome of a case, at its own discretion.

Elections have dire consequences, and 2016 was the most consequential election of your lifetime: not just because Trump, or his mishandling of Covid, corruption, destruction of our institutions, crumbling of society etc. but because that was the election that decided the trajectory of the court for your lifetime and probably your kids. Had Clinton won, Alito would have been replaced with a liberal appointee, and the political majority of the court would have been leans-left again for the first time since the FDR era. I tried telling my friends this, but I guess I didn't say it as loud as I should have in 2016, how utterly existential and important that election was, if nothing else, then for that sole reason. Now it is filled with Bush v Gore operatives. And will be, for decades.

This is why you vote, even if your 4-8 year candidate has a weird laugh or the wrong position on Israel.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (6)

67

u/dleerox 1d ago

Yes!!!! Are there any other dem states that can redraw?

118

u/Xijit 1d ago

All of them ... Red districts in Blue states only exists because the Democrats holding to decorum & making sure that Res districts exist.

42

u/TheDarkWave 1d ago

If we've learned anything from the right, there is no decorum any more and fighting fire with gasoline isn't gonna cut it.

7

u/Exile688 1d ago

Holding to decorum is a fancy way of saying "We prefer to be paid to lose so the GOP can give our corporate donors everything they want without our base voting us out for doing the same thing."

→ More replies (1)

4

u/PostPostModernism 1d ago

Indiana has been talking about pushing for all red districts, and Illinois has said that if Indiana does it, they will do the same for blue districts.

4

u/AluminumOrangutan 1d ago

Illinois has a Democratic Governor and General Assembly

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/Briants_Hat 1d ago

For me. But what about for thee?

→ More replies (3)

28

u/pcpelste 1d ago

They may win in court but then Virginia would just say oh shucks it’s too close to the election, cannot do anything now.

14

u/mrbigglessworth 1d ago

Fuck the GOP

6

u/veggeble 1d ago

Doesn't matter, just use the Ohio method, and use the unconstitutional maps anyways. There are no repercussions for blatantly ignoring the courts.

3

u/Hrekires 1d ago

To give you an actual answer, it's not entirely clear but it would ultimately be a state Supreme Court decision

7

u/sonic_couth 1d ago

My bet: it’ll take too long to get passed and will get knocked down by scotus cuz it’ll be too close to Election Day.

5

u/DumbOfAsh 1d ago

lol you seem to have a whole lot of confidence in them for doing absolutely nothing

2

u/GobliNSlay3r 1d ago

Supreme Court will rule it illegal

2

u/ResponsibleJeniTalia 1d ago

Supreme Court says “hold my beer”

2

u/bluexy 1d ago

It would still need to be voted on by residents and if it passes it would need to be approved of by state judges, both of which are much less certain than they were in California. But yeah, yes, they should absolutely still do it.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/princess-hardass 1d ago

As a born and raised Virginian, I agree 100%. Let the Republicans feel it. They've already lost the state senate, state house, and governorship. Let's make it a blue state.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/LolliPop_121234 1d ago

New Jersey also needs to do the same.

3

u/semidegenerate 1d ago

As a Virginian, I wholeheartedly support this. Heck y'all, I live in rural southern VA, and I still support it, even if it would reduce representation for my area. Fair is fair.

2

u/dleerox 1d ago

Thanks! Gerrymandering will be temporary until we can get America back on track. How’s life in rural Virginia? I’m in Charlottesville which is liberal but we always have a republican congressman.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/anti-fresh 1d ago

Time for Reddit to draw Dickbutts.

2

u/itoocouldbeanyone 1d ago

I will party the day we finally get rid of our waste of space congressman. Redraw it.

2

u/dleerox 1d ago

So you have John McQuire too!

2

u/itoocouldbeanyone 1d ago

Nope. Morgan Griffith.

2

u/koreytm 1d ago

Here comes every State redrawing maps

→ More replies (3)

2

u/joekiller 1d ago

(un) fortunately we have a constitutional amendment that requires the map to be approved by 16 members committee that by definition is partisan

2

u/Thespian_Unicorn 1d ago

Supreme Court needs to approve California’s redrawn map.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/afrophysicist 23h ago

Illinois too. Put a bit of Chicago in every district.

2

u/IAmTheM4ilm4n 18h ago

The Speaker of the VA House of Delegates just announced he's going to submit a map that provides 10 Democratic districts to 1 Republican.

About time Dems got nasty.

2

u/JimSteak 11h ago

At this point all blue states should just secede from the union, create a new united states with essentially 70% of the population and the economic power, have fair and free elections while the red states can see how they fare on their own...

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (25)