this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
379 points (99.5% liked)

News

35342 readers
2791 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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
 

The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year's midterm election, clearing the way for the state's gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The state's voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas' new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House.

And in an unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court's majority denied an emergency request by the California's Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state's GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

There isnt any need for a constituonal amendment to stop gerrymandering. A simple act of Congress will do it

And, to be absolutely clear, nothing less than an act of Congress will stop it nationwide. And any anti-gerrymandering measure that isn't nationwide is an endorsement of partisan gerrymandering in red states.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It took two constitutional amendments to make states allow black people and women to vote. There's another banning poll taxes and the like.

https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights

Most US laws on voting rely on those amendments for support. That's why it's only illegal to gerrymander if it disenfranchises minorities.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago (1 children)

There is nothing in the constitution directly disallowing extreme racial gerrymanders. Those are unlawful not because they're unconditional, but because they're prohibited by the voting rights act.

Congress could very well have passed simple laws banning racial and gender disenfranchisement in federal elections. The amendments were necessary to impose a rule on sub-federal elections and to keep a mere majority from taking the franchise away.

The US Constituon is neither very long nor hard to read, and it has oodles of text that Congress could invoke to ban the gerrymandering of congressional districts:

US Constitution article 1 section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Article 4, section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...

14th amendment section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 minutes ago

There is nothing in the constitution directly disallowing extreme racial gerrymanders. Those are unlawful not because they’re unconditional, but because they’re prohibited by the voting rights act.

Which is backed by the US constitution and in particular the 14th amendment. The "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment in particular is frequently cited in challenges to racial gerrymandering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Johnson

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I don't see how an act of Congress could do it for the same legal reasons Trump can't "nationalize" elections, and the same reason I believe the supreme Court upheld this.

The States have the right to organize how votes are performed, but no one in the U.S. has a right to vote in reality. They have a right to not be discriminated against during voting.

Let's say Florida decided they won't have a popular vote for president and the currently elected representatives vote on the electors.

Every person in Florida just lost their right to vote, but they did not discriminate in doing so, and it could be legal. The residents would have to be pissed at their State government for allowing such a vote to pass.... But federally, it could be constitutional.

Gerrymander remapping has been deemed unconstitutional in other states specifically because they were trying to manipulate representation of certain races to change the results.