I think this is really dangerous, actually. SCOTUS is no implicitly (or on their way to) saying that severe and perverse gerrymandering, is okay
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
341 points (99.4% liked)
News
35342 readers
3413 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
They have already ruled that severe and perverse gerrymandering is okay. Only racist gerrymandering is technically illegal, but they recently made that acceptable, too. Burn it down and start over.
This was already legally happening in Texas. Cali did this in response to Texas being allowed to heavily gerrymander their state in Republican favor.
Editing to add: And it's a time-constrained deal. This new map will only exist until 2030 when the maps would be redrawn anyhow. Cali put this up to a vote. Texas just...did it without a vote. Its near impossible for on-the-ground voters to get anything on a ballot in Texas due to the way the state Constitution is written.
i heard other blue states are doing the same too.
Exactly. As much of a leftist as I am, redrawing electoral maps on the basis of party advantage disenfranchises voters. It is antidemocratic and ethically wrong. California, where I am a registered Democrat, really fucked up here.
Aka the supreme court couldnt figure out how to argue this without making themselves look even more like clowns OR they have a plan B.
It's both actually. The justices beholden to Trumpanzee were informed that the election will be stolen anyway and so the fallout from them "looking even more like clowns" wasn't necessary.
they would have to admit that the GOP states are doing it unfairly, which they dont want to get on the news.
In guessing plan B. If California can use this democrat friendly slanted map then every other state can use whatever conservative slanted maps they draw up.
I think plan B is the ice agents at poking locations they announced today.
This is my exact take too. Opening the floodgates for ultra gerrymandered maps.
I don’t know enough about how all this works. Would it be possible for them to time in coordinated map changes, and outpace any kind of coordinated democratic response right before an election?
That's one hell of an interesting twist.
Roberts and Gorsuch aren't obsessed with winning every short-game match up. They need gerrymandering to be legal in the abstract and for the long term. If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.
In a wave year where Republicans are likely getting swamped out of dozens of seats anyway, there's very little to gain and a lot to lose by creating an exception to the rule on when gerrymandering is legal.
If they start trying to thread the needle between California and Texas, they give the lower courts more opportunities to overturn maps in Republican states and a future SCOTUS more elbow room to overturn their whole reading of legislative maps.
The Roberts SCOTUS has already given any future SCOTUS ample precedent for utterly ignoring previous rulings as it suits their partisan needs several times over. If they think this one somehow stands separate from anything else it's laughable.
I'm sure they have something worse up their sleeve, and this wasn't worth the PR flak they'd catch.
Congratulations, you can use your maps!
On an unrelated note, your maps don’t matter, because we’re gonna let a pants-shitting child rapist cancel the elections as long as he says they’re “rigged.”
And even if he isn't able to do that, just the simple fact that Republicans have dominated rural areas and have ton of states with almost zero population in their thrall means they have a lot more room to run up the scoreboard with map shenanigans. If gerrymandering is legal for everyone, that's a net loss for the Dems.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm sure they'll use this to justify flipping the Texas decision
I thought the Texas one was already permitted.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nice of them to "allow" it. I thought the states were responsible for their own elections?
The question was more about the constitutionality behind how the map was decided. Republicans were arguing it was about race which is unconstitutional. You can only gerrymander to make a one party state.... Which like... Wtf?
The think the race thing is one of the newer amendments, and the baseline is 'states can draw the maps however they want' because that's what they needed to say to get the states on board with being a country in the first place
I'd hope this will bring us closer to real legal barriers to gerrymandering, if hope hadn't been beaten out of me by now.
The weird thing is this CA law removed anti-gerrymandering laws. We had a legal barrier here in CA, but this law was to remove that barrier so we could counter TX. It sucked voting for it.
Yeah this was definitely a race for the bottom, but unfortunately a necessary one. Michelle Obama's idea of "when they go low, we go high" only works if your opponent has a miniscule amount of morals or shame.
Michelle Obama’s idea of “when they go low, we go high” only works if ~~your opponent has~~voters have a miniscule amount of morals or shame.
FTFY
It only works when the voters notice/care. If they did, the Republican Party would have died after GWB.
What about all the WMDs we found in Iraq though?
It also doesn't work when a very large percentage of people desperately WANT you to go low.
From what I've read the barrier wasn't actually removed, so much as putting it on pause for a time. This map will only be in place until 2030 when the maps were going to be redrawn anyway, at which point the new map will be created using the standard anti-gerrymandering method.
It’s time constrained.
load more comments
(12 replies)
The change is time constrained. Anti gerrymandering laws go back into place.
Is it because they know there will be no elections?
"Oops we fucked democracy. Let's do the bare minimum going forward."
Hey - maybe this shouldn't be legal at all? Why is neither party proposing an amendment outlawing this?
The GOP will never support clean cut voting laws, they have to manipulate the votes to win anything they haven't had the numbers to win an election since Nixon. That's the reason our voting laws are convoluted in the first place.
Amendments need 3/4 of the states to ratify. And good luck getting enough of the partisan controlled State governments to agree to that
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So, this CA law is removing the anti-gerrymandering legislation that CA Democrats got enacted. The Democrats proposed a state-wide initiative to stop gerrymandering. It won, and we were all happy. Now we have to remove that legislation because Republicans in other states are going the other direction.
If you think getting 20 Republican governors to sign up for a Constitutional amendment that will destroy the chances of a Republican majority US House is a doable do, then I have a bridge to sell you. The thing is, even proposing it would cost the taxpayers million in all the logistical crap that would happen to have a vote for something guaranteed to fail.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›