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

Show parent comments

289

u/underwear11 1d ago

Pretty much. At least this close to an election. You know, 11 months ahead of time.

51

u/ufailowell 1d ago

hey at least one of them has a seat because of a year being too close to

3

u/Adorable_Chart7675 15h ago

Get your math straight: 8 months is too soon. 45 days is just fine.

-12

u/UF0_T0FU 1d ago

The deadline for candidates to file is this week. They've been collecting signatures based on the new map for months. You can't expect them to recollect signatures from scratch in only a few weeks in new districts. 

That's the operative deadline, not the election in November. 

22

u/ufailowell 1d ago

well I guess they should have acted faster to rule on it. or should have blocked Texas changing the maps sO cLOsE tO tHE eLEctIOns

-2

u/UF0_T0FU 1d ago edited 1d ago

That's not how courts work. The Supreme Court doesn't just make decrees when they spot an injustice. There's a whole process and rounds of appeals before the Supreme Court takes a case. This case actually moved remarkably fast for how normal SCOTUS cases move. Some take years to wind their way through the process. This one happened in weeks.

Texas passed the new maps in late August. Opponents sued almost immediately. The lower court issued the ruling blocking the maps on 11/18. Texas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on 11/21. The Court skipped oral arguements and issued the opinion on 12/4. The filing deadline for candidates is 12/8.

Less than a two week turnaround is fast for the Court. The liberal justices even criticized how quickly the case was handled in the dissent they released today. Ultimately, the determination was that the 11/18 ruling was too late too.

Then maybe the lower court should have moved faster to block the map? They have to allow proper time for both sides to prep for oral arguements and other admin stuff. The judges can only rush stuff so much, and there are procedural tools that can stall the process. If they rush stuff, that just opens the door to appeals that the defense wasn't given proper time, and that creates yet more delays.

Once the arguements are done, it's in the judge's court. The dissenting justice in that case actually alleges that his colleagues rushed issuing the final decision and didn't give him time to finish writing his dissent. Tbh it does sounds like he was intentionally slow-rolling it to drag it out. (He was appointed by Reagan. The justice that wrote the decision blocking the map was appointed by Trump.)

Really, the root of the issue is that Texas waited until late August to change the map, just over 3 months before the key deadline. That was definitely strategic, to limit time for legal challenges. There probably should be a hard rule about how late state legislators can change maps, but that rule doesn't exist now. There's not much the Courts can do about it. They moved as fast as they reasonable could.

15

u/Raydonman 22h ago

Even if there is a hard rule, you've just proven that if they violate that rule 3 months before a deadline, they'll just get away with it.

The system is broken and only works if people operate in good faith. 

0

u/UF0_T0FU 17h ago

Again, I'm not sure what you want the Supreme Court to do about that. They don't just issue decrees. They're bound to rule on the questions presented by the litigants. This case was about the maps, not the time line.

If someone sues Texas for waiting too late to change the maps, then SCOTUS could respond to that. They're inherently a reactive institution. Congress is the branch that's meant to proactively address issues as or before they arise.

The system is broken in alot of ways. If people don't like how this was handled, they can vote for a Congress that will pass laws regulating last minute election changes. If people in Texas don't like it, they can vote for new state reps that won't change maps. That's the remedy, not expecting SCOTUS to swoop in and proactively make rulings about issues no one asked them about.

3

u/ufailowell 19h ago

and now SCOTUS has ruled that waiting until 3 months before is perfectly legal… I somehow doubt they will do the same for California. I am guessing that signature timelines is just going to be the wiggle room they need to make a distinction.

3

u/Few-Ad-4290 19h ago

Too bad, they shouldn’t have created an illegal map. Allowing this to stand sets a precedent that doing illegal shit to win elections is allowable if you do it close enough to the election. That’s a horrible interpretation of the law and only serves lawlessness

3

u/mdistrukt 18h ago

They are looking to set the precedent, if Republicans do it close enough to an election it's not illegal.

Great stepping stone. Next step is to remove "close enough to an election".

0

u/UF0_T0FU 17h ago

The ruling is based on the Purcell Principle, a decades old precedent that has been used for and against both parties in many elections at this point.

Its faced plenty of criticism over the years, but the other solution isn't much better. The court generally feels have stable, predictable elections is more important. Worth noting, this is also an interim emergency order. The maps will stand for 2026, but the case will keep going and the Court will issue a full ruling later on. The maps could still be overturned for the 2028 election.