c/texas · by end0fline@piefed.social · 299d

BREAKING: Federal court blocks Texas from using new congressional gerrymander in 2026 midterms

https://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/news/breaking-federal-court-blocks-texas-from-using-new-congressional-gerrymander-in-2026-midterms/article_6baf9d95-e060-56d5-8a1a-ad2779652d51.html

108 points · 15 comments · view on lemmy.world

15 Comments

artyom@piefed.social · 19 pts · 299d

Unexpected pick-me-up today

SuiXi3D@fedia.io · 14 pts · 299d

Good. Fuck Governor Hot Wheels and his Cavalcade of Corruption.

Jumbie@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 299d

Lmao. That’ll stop em.

Prove_your_argument@piefed.social · 8 pts · 299d (2 replies)

this is nearly a whole year away. They'll appeal it and win, even if it has to get to the supreme corrupt judges.

rainwall@piefed.social · 5 pts · 299d

They dont have that much time:

The case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but time is short: Candidates only have until Dec. 8 to file for the upcoming election.

Id expect the shadow docket will do its shadow tricks and halt the halt, but its not cut and dry.

shalafi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 299d

This Supreme Court ruled against Alabama's bullshit redistricting and is currently looking at Louisiana's changes. I can give you 2 dozen other cases where this SCOTUS voted "woke" or refused to hear such a case, letting a lower court's "woke" decision stand.

Yes, Alito and Thomas (especially Thomas) are blatantly corrupt, I get that. But these people are at the top of their profession, can't be voted out, have nothing left to lose but their legacy in the law books. They are conservative, they are not partisan. Does that make sense?

Y'all are skeptical, and right to be so, but does no one actually follow the news?

samus12345@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 299d (8 replies)

And California...?

chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 299d (3 replies)

Wasn't California's gerrymandering explicitly conditional on Texas doing it?

samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 299d (2 replies)

The language in the original legislative proposal (Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8) specified that California's new map would become operative if Texas, Florida, or another state adopted a new, non-federally-mandated congressional district map between August 1, 2025, and January 1, 2031.

Ah, yes, it is, and not just Texas. So it won't happen if nobody else does it.

EDIT: This was old info. That part was removed. So it still stands.

chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 299d (1 reply)

They really removed that part? Why

samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 299d

I'm not sure, but I'm not complaining. It has an expiration date. Fascists don't fight fair and neither should we.

end0fline@piefed.social · 2 pts · 299d (3 replies)

I'm not a law person, but to the best of my knowledge, its OK to gerrymander on party lines, just not racial lines. I think California would be fine here. They are being sued as well so we will see how it goes.

samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 299d (2 replies)

Prop 50 actually specifies that it will only come into effect if another state (not just Texas) does it.

EDIT: That part was removed, so it actually still stands.

end0fline@piefed.social · 2 pts · 299d (1 reply)

I read this on the sfgate:

Prop. 50 originally included “trigger language,” redistricting expert Paul Mitchell explained to SFGATE, that stipulated that California’s map would be implemented only if Texas carried on with its plan to add five Republican seats. If Texas decided to not move forward, then California would not either, even if voters approved Prop. 50.

That language was taken out at the last minute this summer after the Texas Legislature expedited its approval of the map in August and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott quickly signed it into law.

source

samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 299d

Well, well, so it was! I'm not complaining.