Today, the Supreme Court told California that it could use its new congressional voting maps, which create more leans-Democratic districts. It drew them last year after voters passed Proposition 50, which they did in response to rank political gerrymandering in Texas. The Texas gerrymander happened in response because Donald Trump demanded that his party create more Republican seats in the House of Representatives ahead of the midterm elections. Texas Governor Greg Abbot was quick to salute and get it done. The California Democratic Party explained the whole mess like this: “Proposition 50 is a direct response to a Republican power grab orchestrated by President Trump and state leaders in Texas, who redrew Congressional district lines to gain five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Proposition 50 proposes new lines for many of California’s 52 congressional districts, which would negate the five Republican seats drawn by Texas.” The Supreme Court, at first seemingly with distaste and increasingly in the last few years with more abandon has adopted the view that political gerrymanders can stand. It’s reasoning is that while racial gerrymanders violate the Constitution and are illegal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to invalidate purely political ones. That’s the principle they seem to have applied with today’s one-sentence decision.
The Court’s unsigned order reads, “The application for writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.” The plaintiff, California Assembly member David Tangipais sought an injunction to prevent the new maps from going into effect after the lower court permitted them to go forward. The Court told him no. Even though this is another shadow docket decision about an injunction, not a substantive decision about the merits of the case following full briefing and oral argument, it’s likely to stand, at least for this next election. California’s primaries are held in June, and it’s impractical for the Court to upset the state of play after candidates have qualified and ballots are being printed. There is also the so called-Purcell principle, that prohibits election changing decisions made too close to the start of elections. Instead, the Court will permit both Texas, which acted like a sword here, and California, which played the role of a shield, to maintain an uneasy political equilibrium. Although we don’t know what the vote on the Court was beyond the fact that at least five Justices voted for this result, no Justice wrote in dissent. What was good for the goose in Texas has now been approved for the California gander. But this is about more that tit for tat. The real story is the origin of the gerrymander race to the bottom with Donald Trump’s demand that Republicans hold onto a Republican majority in the House with unprecedented midterm redistricting plans, based on nothing other than raw partisan politics. Trump believes politicians can choose their voters, and that they can deny voters the ability to decide who to elect. We can’t lose sight of that just because California blocked this particular effort. This is about Donald Trump, who is determined to hold onto power, no matter what voters want. Make sure you’re prepared to have that conversation if a friend or family member approaches you with outrage about what California is “getting away with.” This is about Donald Trump and his efforts to prevent us from having free and fair elections. We’re in this together, Joyce You're currently a free subscriber to Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Good For The Gander
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Stocks continue to slide amid tech selloff
Investors were once again in risk-off mode as tech and crypto continued to fall. Your Evening Briefing February 04, 2026 Stocks continue to ...
No comments:
Post a Comment