News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Okay now block California's also
No, because while racial gerrymandering is illegal because race is a protected class, political gerrymandering is not because political affiliation is not a protected class.
More specifically: staunchly Republican supporting areas tends to lean heavily white, while staunchly Democratic supporting areas tend to be much more cosmopolitan and racially heterogeneous. This had pretty obvious implications on the legal viability of gerrymandering towards the right in our one-dimensional political system - assuming, of course, anyone actually gives a shit about court orders and precedent, which the current regime (and I lump the Texas state government in with them) kinda doesn’t, so who fucking knows.
To be fair, the GOP is running the same play in CA. They’re claiming CA’s gerrymandering is racial and needs to be halted.
This case is good because, if it goes to the SCOTUS, they can’t throw it out without also throwing out what the GOP is pushing for in CA. Or, if they try to throw it out, they’re going to need some expert level mental gymnastics.
You are referring to Olympic level mental gymnasts FYI.
100%. The GOP is absolutely going to try to find some sort of silly reason why the two cases should be different.
Probably something a stupid about disenfranchising more districts with in-n-out burgers, and the cups contain bible verses on them, so religious discrimination.
California seems to have done it legally. Republicans have fought tooth and nail for decades to make gerrymandering legal. While I don't believe in gerrymandering, I'm not going to try and save them from the literal consequences of their attacks on democracy. Maybe now Republicans will finally understand why an independent districting body matters.
Isn't California's map dependent on the Texas one going into effect? That was the original wording at least back when it was first introduced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_California_Proposition_50
The specific text of the Proposition is
There is no trigger tied to any action by the Texas redistricting committee. However, prior to Democrats putting the amendment on the California ballot..
Now that the law has passed with overwhelming support (64/35 on final count), the map that was drafted by the independent bipartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission is in effect going into 2026. This court decision has no effect on the California ballot amendment results or the enforcement of the new maps.
That language was removed, but you're right it was there initially. I think they removed the language to be able to respond if several other states combined also redistricted.
Yes. CA is basically responding to neutralize Texas. Ditto with this case. The GOP is trying to sue to top CA’s neutralization effort, and they’re claiming that CA’s very political gerrymander is secretly racist. In response, Dems are basically issuing the exact same racial gerrymander case in TX.
The one big difference is that CA’s voters are on record for supporting this. TX politicians are doing this without the consent of the people.
It is stated to be in response to Texas, but the amended constitution as far as I can see doesn't use language about it being conditional on Texas' plan happening.
It's just that the legislature's map shall be used for elections between the proposition's passage and 2031's regularly scheduled redistricting.
The verbiage in prop 50 that limited action based on Texas outcomes of implementing their maps was removed before Newsom's signature.
For now, at least, California's actions will continue to move forward.
I'd say don't count Texas out yet.
Block it everywhere, implement independent districting everywhere.
That's how you get fair districts with some districts being more fair than others.
Like Ohio did?
Independent districting is just as vulnerable to the GOP. They will eliminate any sort of independence whether through legislation or threatening non-GOP members.
That’s kind of the point of this law suit. The dems have a Texas suit about racial gerrymandering, and the GOP has a suit in CA about racial gerrymandering.
The point it’s to respond to Texas tit for tat. If TX gerrymanders, CA gerrymanders equivalently. Moreover, if the suit in Texas gets tossed by the SCOTUS, then the SCOTUS has an equivalent case in CA that will likely require an equivalent ruling.
The point in CA is to counterbalance, not make gains.
The facts in the California case will find that it was driven by political alignment, not race.
TX will just disguise its intentions a little better next time.