725
Judge rejects ‘racially gerrymandered’ maps in Texas that gave Republicans extra districts
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
725 points (99.2% liked)
News
36327 readers
2430 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nice. So the 5 blue districts we just added in California aren't just canceling out those red seats, they're just adding 5 blue ones.
afaik those laws only kick in if texas goes through with their plan
I think that was in the original text but was removed before passage because Texas has already passed their gerrymander
lame. mitch mcconnell taught us better
playing by the rules as usual :( it should have been a punishment - not just an equaliser… there’s no reason for them not to try again next time
It's not in the law anymore.
False. That language was removed before it was voted on.
Now Illinois, Minnesota, and New York should step up.
Red states have been shamelessly gerrymandering for so long, that they have very few options for improvement left. The only reason they see a window now is because SCOTUS has shown a willingness to accept race-based suppression, which they wouldn't before. But they been so close for so long, that their moves are still limited.
But Dems have remained stupidly committed to fair play all along, despite it not being returned. So they have lots of potential to gain some seats and deny other seats to MAGA, and the Dems should exploit that potential RUTHLESSLY. The MAGAs surely would, if the courts would let them. Why should the Dems protect MAGAs from themselves, especially since THEY started it? This was a fight they started, and Ds should finish it, Ender-style.
~~California’s law is only Mutually Assured Destruction. It applies in response to the gerrymandering of other states.~~
The only provision in the California law that makes it reasonable is that it’s time limited.
They pulled the reciprocity clause out at the last minute after Texas passed it's bill.
Womp womp.
Its probably for the better. Short of a clause triggered by eliminating the congressional district system entirely in favor of proportional voting, the idea of "counter-gerrymandering" clause is a major legal hazard'
The supreme court, for instance, might zero in on such a clause and cynically say California is 'violating the 10th amendment rights of other states' instead of having to find a way to strike it out under 14th amendment provisions (an amendment which the current supreme court hates)
This is not true. That language was removed from the bill before it passed
This will probably just get appealed to the supreme court so they can further gut the civil rights act.