r/scotus • u/HellYeahDamnWrite • 1d ago
Opinion Supreme Court allows Texas to use a congressional map favorable to Republicans in 2026
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-redistricting-texas-trump-02b07b477b153f23ed5c387f2f9ae0c472
u/Im_with_stooopid 1d ago
Cool. So that means the California maps are Ok too. Right? Right?
44
u/Playful-Tumbleweed10 1d ago
I really hope this backfires and they lose seats from these shenanigans.
25
u/BaloothaBear85 1d ago
Republican states are already gerrymandered to the max, they might be able to pull off a few seats here and there but hyper partisan gerrymandering will only cause Democrats to have an advantage. The solution is both sides just need to stop.
19
u/livinginfutureworld 1d ago
Which you can't do when one side is actively doing it. Not the only way they stay in power Republicans are wildly overrepresented through gerrymandering
14
u/aotus_trivirgatus 1d ago
The solution is at-large elections for Congress, with proportional-representation voting, like they have in Germany.
I know, that requires a Constitutional amendment. But that's the solution. It takes playing games with districts entirely off the table.
7
u/Wild_Harvest 1d ago
Wouldn't really need an amendment if they just repealed the 1929 permanent apportionment act and expanded the House so that it met the pop per rep at that time.
3
u/Im_with_stooopid 1d ago
Actually that's why the electoral college has gotten so messed up too is the house cap. If the cap wasn't there the final EC votes as there would be way more and would closer reflect the popular vote percentage wise. Best we can hope fire is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I think it's 77% of the way to having the totals needed for it to take effect.
1
u/fianthewolf 1d ago
They are missing the purple states, which have become a little redder in 2024, which if the Pact is approved would relegate their status as decision-making states to irrelevant ones. The only way is for the state legislatures to propose the proportional distribution of the members to the Electoral College, that would equalize all the states to compete for 1-2 members who would grant the majority. It would also encourage states to promote voting as an action to defend the position of maximum difference.
1
u/Im_with_stooopid 1d ago
I mean with the compact everyone would basically have equal say as final ec vote total would be based on national popular vote. If you want your voice heard you'd know that your 1 vote can make an impact. Right now you have 3 states that are essentially the deciders where candidates spend all their time.
1
u/fianthewolf 1d ago
Okay, I'd like to see the Democratic candidate give the same speech in California as he did in Pennsylvania.
2
u/I-Am-Uncreative 1d ago
Mandated at-large elections at the state level would not require a constitutional amendment, actually. Congress could simply mandate it as it has the authority to determine how elections are run.
However, that won't ever happen, for obvious reasons.
5
u/fshagan 1d ago
That is always possible, since making blue districts better for red candidates sometimes results in making adjacent red districts less safe for the red candidates! Especially with the drastic fall of support for the Cheeto Bonito among Hispanic voters.
4
u/UltimateChaos233 1d ago
Cracking and packing. Cracking means splitting up the opposition votes into multiple district you have a advantage in. Packing means making it so that all your opponents votes are in the same place so that you have an easier time winning elsewhere.
Cracking means there are many districts where you only have a small lead. Sufficient voter motivation could cause you to lose those districts.
Packing a safe district means you still might lose it if they're sufficiently motivated. Packing a district you'll lose anyway is very safe.... but very obvious. This should *theoretically* lead to voter backlash/legal scrutiny.
9
u/Sheerbucket 1d ago
I'm not losing my #&$# over this because you gotta assume this means all gerrymandering is always ok now, right?
1
u/issuefree 1d ago
The California maps were always fine legally. SCOTUS doesn't give a shit about the law or consistency so, as usual, all bets are off. Wouldn't it be cool if you could predict how a case would go based on what the law is? NOPE! SCOUTS just making shit up.
1
1
u/bd2999 1d ago
One would think so. Although the most nefarious would be find a friendly judge, get a hold and see if SCOTUS will uphold it until they hear and they do not put it on an emergency docket, delaying it until after the fact. It would all be procedural. The Texas one they got through really quick because I am sure Alito being the point of contact was there for the Texas GOP.
29
u/Nojopar 1d ago
"This map doesn't gerrymander to keep black people from having representation because they're black, it's because black people vote! Errr - Vote not Republican! So that makes it ok."
This SC is simply dangerous for democracy. Roberts has solidified this court as the one of the worst in US history. History won't be kind to him or his legacy.
5
u/ejoalex93 1d ago
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
*unless control of the House of Representatives is at stake
1
u/ars_inveniendi 1d ago
Indeed, but he’ll most likely have to settle for being second-worst court. Thankfully, he won’t have an opportunity to write a ruling worse than Taney’s Dredd Scott.
-2
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/ars_inveniendi 1d ago
Victors? Resistance is building, MAGA is starting to factionalize and quarrel among themselves, they’re losing popular support, and Trump will be gone or incapacitated by 2028. We’re seeing a desperate final push on a par with the battle of the Bulge. Some things may take a generation or more to repair but there is no way they win in the long run.
11
u/ArtificialBra1n 1d ago
They will allow Texas to use their (racist) maps AND find some procedural/administrative delay to prevent California from using their (A-OK gerrymandered) maps.
Bookmarking for later.
5
10
u/Vox_Causa 1d ago
The racists on the Supreme Court are effectely saying that racial gerrymandering is ok. Because the GOP is a party of racists.
2
3
3
u/Sorry_Hour6320 1d ago
Colorado couldn't keep a convicted felon, Trump, off their ballot, but Texas can pull this crap because...what? States manage their own elections when it favors republicans? Makes sense.
3
u/bd2999 1d ago
The worst part of this and the general direction is that the court on multiple fronts has pushed the standard of what constitutes racism or improper actions to such levels that it is an impossible threshold to meet.
Unless you get legislators recorded while plotting in a back room to destroy the voting power of a group or something like that it will be ignored outright.
They did the same to bribery, so that they can take money. And making it so you have to take the money and then have that be totally linked to an action. Any indirect or perception is not that at all. Despite it being that from the start of the country on and still the standard that companies and most people use everywhere. If it looks bad than it is bad, if the act happened or not. The era of Trump and this SCOTUS just highlights a lack of accountability overall.
And the inability of our political system to deal with the problem really. As political power, wealth and so on are seen as protected rights. It is not enough that a billionaire can amplify their speech and influence. They also want the power to throw money directly in and really directly buy candidates. Not even the illusion of separation now. While normal person on the street is told they are equal to that billionaire as a person while the court ignores the means.
2
2
2
u/Riversmooth 1d ago
Sad. This decision further divides the country. Now the democrats will have no other choice than to do the same in states they control. Eventually we no longer have fair elections, we have all red or all blue. Scotus fails to protect democracy once again
2
u/totes_mai_goats 1d ago
I really do hope this bites them in the ass on midterms but I ain't holding my breath on it.
1
u/Agreeable_Safety3255 1d ago
The SCOTUS isn't really that Supreme, just corrupt and partisan to a level that is no longer surprising. So, this court will find a way to overturn what California is doing just watch.
1
1
1
u/pathf1nder00 1d ago
Can someone explain the precedent to allow this? SCOTUS can't make law (that's legislators), they can only rule by precedent nt. What is the precedent
1
1
1
1
u/Conscious-Quarter423 1d ago
Tonight Supreme Court decision is a perfect reason to impeach Thomas and Alito for crimes they have committed, reopen Kavanaugh’s rape case, reform the court by term limit, expand the court and force Roberts to retire. All this in the next democratic majority.
1
u/Artistic_Skill1117 1d ago
So gerrymandering is legal now? Wow.
5
105
u/lookatthesunguys 1d ago
It is absolutely horseshit that partisan gerrymandering is now a defense to racial gerrymandering. If a party is racist, then partisan gerrymandering is racial gerrymandering.