'Not the way things are supposed to work': Blue-state Republicans turn on Speaker in GOP map battle

[CimpleMan]

Impossible to know how escalation of gerrymandering wars plays out, but Democratic Party doing nothing is the bigger risk imo.

 

[Bullseye]

Tough beans, Repubs. You made this bed of nails. Time to lie in it.

Except, at least in Texas they were following the laws of the state. A vote in the legislature. California HAS a non-partisan agency that is responsible for political disttricting. Newsom is breaking the law. Even if he gets the vote he wants he'll likely be tied up in lawsuits for years.
Also I'd take a look at some recent polls showing rank-and-file dems don't like their elected representatives very much.

 

[Callen]

Except, at least in Texas they were following the laws of the state. A vote in the legislature. California HAS a non-partisan agency that is responsible for political disttricting. Newsom is breaking the law. Even if he gets the vote he wants he'll likely be tied up in lawsuits for years.
Also I'd take a look at some recent polls showing rank-and-file dems don't like their elected representatives very much.

They are putting the decision on redistricting to a vote.

POLITICO Pro: California Democrats say they have enough votes for redistricting

Leaders say lawmakers will support a ballot measure asking voters to redraw congressional maps to counter a similar GOP effort in Texas.

subscriber.politicopro.com

 

[Bullseye]

They are putting the decision on redistricting to a vote.

POLITICO Pro: California Democrats say they have enough votes for redistricting

Leaders say lawmakers will support a ballot measure asking voters to redraw congressional maps to counter a similar GOP effort in Texas.

subscriber.politicopro.com

Yeah, I know. That was the point about "even if he gets what he wants . . .", e.g. the vote,

 

[Pyrite]

Except, at least in Texas they were following the laws of the state. A vote in the legislature. California HAS a non-partisan agency that is responsible for political disttricting. Newsom is breaking the law. Even if he gets the vote he wants he'll likely be tied up in lawsuits for years.
Also I'd take a look at some recent polls showing rank-and-file dems don't like their elected representatives very much.

Geeze, a trump supporter/GOPer is concerned about what he believes is the possibility that DEMOCRATS might break the law.

 

[Bullseye]

Geeze, a trump supporter/GOPer is concerned about what he believes is the possibility that DEMOCRATS might break the law.

I'm more worried about the wasteful spending of the several million dollars an election would cost. Particularly when there's no rational need to waste the money.

 

[JMB1911A1]

To me all that says is there are 90 vulnerable seats.

It says to me that Democrats are more vulnerable than Republicans. That is because Democrat states are already gerrymandered to hell.

 

[Perotista]

By what definition?

I don’t use vulnerable; I use competitive instead. Whether or not you want to equate the two is up to you. What we have today is 40 competitive seats, 395 non-competitive. Competitive seats are those which are competitive or either party has a decent shot at them. Then you have the non-competitive seats where it is deemed the incumbent will win hands down. That is as of today, be aware as time goes by some or a lot of these non-competitive seats can become competitive as can the present or today’s competitive seats go into the non-competitive column. As I stated, this is dynamic. Changes in status or columns will happen as time move forward. This is if the election were held today, not November of 2026. There could be minimal changes or there could be quite a lot of changes. Time will tell.

The above doesn’t include what may or may not happen with Texas or California. Just today’s snapshot.

 

[Bullseye]

They are putting the decision on redistricting to a vote.

POLITICO Pro: California Democrats say they have enough votes for redistricting

Leaders say lawmakers will support a ballot measure asking voters to redraw congressional maps to counter a similar GOP effort in Texas.

subscriber.politicopro.com

And then the actual redistricting has to be done, approved, and then voting in those new districts.

 

[Callen]

It says to me that Democrats are more vulnerable than Republicans. That is because Democrat states are already gerrymandered to hell.

Man Fox is good at this sh!t. Up until this week never a squeak about it but now Trumpers are all up in arms about gerrymandering and all spouting the exact same words!!!! You preach to the converted! Redistricting is nothing new. Doing it mid-decade, mid-census is. Never been done before absent a court order. Trump says "find me five more seats" and Abbott jumps.

 

[mrjurrs]

False.

This has happened before, and the Supreme Court has upheld the action.

The action of redistricting in that case was the result of a court decision, not the President calling a Governor. So while you are technically correct, you are also woefully inaccurate.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Man Fox is good at this sh!t. Up until this week never a squeak about it but now Trumpers are all up in arms about gerrymandering and all spouting the exact same words!!!! You preach to the converted! Redistricting is nothing new. Doing it mid-decade, mid-census is. Never been done before absent a court order. Trump says "find me five more seats" and Abbott jumps.

 

[Mycroft]

The action of redistricting in that case was the result of a court decision, not the President calling a Governor. So while you are technically correct, you are also woefully inaccurate.

Not true.

The court decision upheld the gerrymandering. It didn't cause it.

And, whether it was the President suggesting it or not is irrelevant. The fact is, gerrymandering outside of the census is not "unprecedented".

 

[mrjurrs]

Not true.

The court decision upheld the gerrymandering. It didn't cause it.

And, whether it was the President suggesting it or not is irrelevant. The fact is, gerrymandering outside of the census is not "unprecedented".

What case are you referring to? I'm referring to League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (2006)
AI
This is a key Supreme Court case regarding mid-decade redistricting. The case originated from a 2003 redistricting plan passed by the Texas State Legislature. Critics argued the plan was unconstitutional and violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the plan did not violate the Constitution but did violate the Voting Rights Act. Regarding mid-decade redistricting, a plurality opinion written by Justice Kennedy (joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg) found claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering insufficient to create a reliable standard for finding a constitutional violation."

 

[The AntiDonald]

Trumpers want to pretend this is just about gerrymandering to catch up with what Dems have done. They want to totally ignore the mid- decade, mid-census thing and Trump's directive to find him 5 more seats in the 2026 election. It's deliberate election rigging but they are pretending it's something else.

Republican cheating kicked into full gear when McConnell denied even a hearing for Garland. Once they saw that they got away with that, it was off to the races.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Not true.

The court decision upheld the gerrymandering. It didn't cause it.

And, whether it was the President suggesting it or not is irrelevant. The fact is, gerrymandering outside of the census is not "unprecedented".

Doesn't matter. It's still wrong no matter who does it. This round clearly started by Trump and republicans. They know damn well they lose in 2026 unless they find ways to rig it. We all knew this would happen in some form. Look for more in the near future.