Redistricting for me, not for thee!
Honestly, every fucking thing they do.
1 Like
I’ve long been on record as saying gerrymandering is harmful. But TX isn’t violating its own constitution to do this. Newsome is trying to do just that. NY Dems also tried to violate their state constitution to do the same thing several years ago.
Let’s not try any holier than thou remarks. Ain’t nobody here but us chickens.
1 Like
At least several online sources I’ve seen do not agree. The process for determining districts in CA does not appear to be part of its constitution, and Newsom is letting voters decide about the process. What is your source for saying it is a constitutional violation?
I believe the CA Constitution states that a law must be available to the public for 30 days before it can be voted on. Newsome is trying to bypass that to get this on the November ballot - it needs to be approved by lawmakers soon in order to get on the ballot.
The argument is over what they call a gut-and-amend - a law is introduced earlier, and is then changed to something completely different. Some argue that the amendments to the law don’t need the 30 day window, they only need 72 hours.
This was never yet challenged in court, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
Some argue that…because that’s what the constitution says. 30 days for bills, 72 hours for amendments. The redistricting stuff was added as an amendment to a bill initiated in January. From what I read, California SC shot down the argument once so it kind of has been challenged in court.
That sounds slightly different to me. From your account, the attempt to change districts by vote of the people, including this close to an election, is not unconstitutional. Only the insufficient notice is a potential constitutional violation.
But as you describe it, the method in this situation seems to be a clear attempt to defeat the intent of the constitution.
Haven’t we long since passed the point where this is a consideration?
We may have, but we should not have.
Exactly. The argument is that amendments should be minor changes, within the scope of the original bill. Completely gutting and changing the bill shouldn’t be considered an amendment.
Given that I’m a firm believer in considering the original intent when things were written (which is why I disagreed with Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges), I think it’s clear that this is not ok.
The article mentions that one of the two districts was went for our Glorious Leader by only two points, while the other had a +7 margin for you-know-who. However, in both cases it must be remembered that down-ticket candidates have done MUCH better than our Cheeto-in-chief.
It sounds like today’s SCOTUS hearing on the Louisiana voting rights act suit is not going well.
NYT has this map showing part of what’s on the line:
Previously on Missouri Republicans dislike direct democracy, a state wide referendum supporting abortion rights passed overwhelmingly. In response, this year’s ballot has a referendum that restricts abortion rights but is misleadingly phrased to make it sound like it protects them (see other posts elsewhere). Now, they are also attempting to block a state referendum opposing gerrymandering.
Virginia is now looking at redrawing their congressional districts. Like California, acting on this would require an amendment to the state constitution.
Map shows where MAGA thrives in the state. Trump flags, even 2020 ones still because they can’t afford a new one, still fly. Some Confederate flags, too.