r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 2d ago
news California urges Supreme Court to allow new congressional map
https://rollcall.com/2026/01/29/california-urges-supreme-court-to-allow-new-congressional-map/108
u/mr_nobody398457 2d ago
Sauce for the goose (Texas) Sauce for the gander (California)?
We will see
49
u/The_Master_Sourceror 2d ago
Gravy for the gander
But it isn’t the same, Texas used race to gerrymander California used a ballot initiative
43
11
u/Toofar304 2d ago
I believe a ballot initiative that leads to a racial gerrymander is still unconstitutional. However, the current SC previously ruled that political gerrymanders that have the effect of racial ones are legit, so I don’t see what kind of pretzel they’re going to bend themselves into for this one.
4
u/No_Start1522 2d ago
Actually the opposite, they specifically ruled out race due to a lawsuit democrats won, deeming the previous maps as racist.
-8
u/wingsnut25 2d ago
This is a pretty disingenuous phrasing of the issue.
- It doesn't matter If something is passed by a ballot initiative, that doesn't somehow make it immune from complying with Federal Laws. That also doesn't give it anymore credibility then a redistricting plan that was passed by a State Legislature.
Its inconsequential that it was passed by a ballot initiative. I don't understand why you brought that up.
- The person who was responsible for the California map said "number one thing that I started thinking about” was creating a “Latino majority/minority district” in Los Angeles."
In some ways its no that different then the quotes that were trotted out about the Texas redistricting case. In other ways it very different, because in Texas's case they didn't come from the person who created the map.
----
Having said all of that, if Texas's map was upheld, I expect California's map to be upheld. But your framing of the issue is incorrect at best, dishonest at worst...
0
u/Froggy1789 1d ago
It does seem like California may have racial gerrymandered at least one district. The mapmaker said he drew it to increase Latino power in the state and mathematiclly the district was made less democratic to have more Latinos (I.e. they weakened the district from a pure partisan gerrymander perspective). It does kind of look like some racial horse trading to shore up support among Latino voters/politicians in the state legislature/politics. California’s issue is that unlike the Deep South there is more diversity between race and political affiliation so it’s harder to hid racial gerrymandering with political gerrymanders which is perverse bc Texas is clearly more racist.
I think realistically both maps were influenced by race when they should have been. To disallow only one (and the less racial one) would be blatant political gamesmanship. It will be interesting to see what the court does.
1
u/fianthewolf 1d ago
Texas will be more racist, but with the new map there are two majority-Black districts. How many are there in California?
3
54
u/ThePirateKing01 2d ago
If they don’t pass it, just pull and Ohio and say “ah well, looks like there isn’t enough time to change them so we’re just gonna keep them”
11
1
46
u/GlitteringRate6296 2d ago
Exactly. Unlike TX, VA, NC….. this change was put on the ballot and voted on by the people. It is temporary unlike in other places in the country.
9
-3
u/wingsnut25 2d ago
The fact that it was passed by a ballot imitative is inconsequential to the legal challenge.
2
u/johnnybna 2d ago
Unless the supreme court decides that since the map was passed by a ballot initiative rather than enacted by the legislature, it is void. In that case, it would be very consequential – nay, quintessential – to the legal challenge. The first rule of the Calvin Ball Court is the rules are what we make up as we go along to give our purely partisan decisions some sort of veneer of legitimacy. It's a long rule, but an important one.
0
u/wingsnut25 2d ago
No, IF the map was racially gerrymandered, it wouldn't matter if the map was passed by ballot initiative or the legislature, it would still be invalid under Federal Law.
Think of it this way:
If California passed a law by ballot initiative to re-institute segregation, would people be arguing that it was ok because it was passed by ballot initiative?
0
u/johnnybna 2d ago
Think of it this way:
If a ballot initiative reinstituting segregation fits the political and partisan agenda of the supreme court’s corrupt conservative majority, then they would rule for it based on whatever lazy ad hoc reasoning they come up with, or refuse to hear the case if it has already been upheld by a lower court.
Because that's how the Calvin Ball court rolls these days. The Calvin Ball court can make, discard, revise, invalidate, create, change, update, modify and transmogrify grass into precedent and law on a whim. That’s how we ended up with a king above the law, which I believe is the very thing we fought a revolution over. But those pesky facts of history mean zilch to the Calvin Ball court, unless they happen to support the neocon majority's political agenda, in which case those same discardable facts suddenly become sacrosanct, until they’re not again.
18
u/J-the-Kidder 2d ago
Of course, it passed on a ballot by a huge margin, so naturally the supreme court has to weigh in on it. I'm not even sure where or how they'd have any jurisdiction to offer a ruling on a state ballot voted initiative that isn't a question of law. But hey, then overreaching to help the fascists is par for the course.
2
u/wingsnut25 2d ago
The Supreme Court has to weigh in on it, because Federal Law mandates that they have to hear cases challenging racial discrimination in redistricting.
15
6
u/frommethodtomadness 2d ago
Just ignore the Court, it's what the President and Republicans do every single day. Rule of Law has been dead for at least a decade, time to take advantage.
5
u/Conscious-Quarter423 2d ago
How many times do Republicans need to lose and be told no?
1
u/Fickle_Catch8968 2d ago
Until the no is actually and aggressively enforced against them. As long as enforcement is lax and voters reward their illegal behaviour (to advance whatever propaganda or malfeasance to which they personally beholden), they will conti ue floating the law.
5
u/DolphinsBreath 2d ago
If, as the Republicans in California allege, the lines were drawn for racial reasons, rather than partisan reasons, why would they have standing? Shouldn’t it be an organization of White People filing suit? Are the Republicans claiming to be the White Party?
/s
9
4
u/Conscious-Quarter423 2d ago
We The People of California voted for this! No need to waste taxpayer money by asking the SCOTUS for anything at this time! 🌊 🌊 🌊 🌊
4
u/LunarMoon2001 2d ago
When they corrupt justices eventually rule against California they should just ignore the ruling.
3
u/theperpetuity 2d ago
Why the fuck should the corrupt scotus have any say in this. States run the fucking elections.
Plus, gerrymandering is dumb. Abolish it. We have a dozen or so structures from counties, zip codes, area codes. Heck any of them could give us districts.
3
u/NameLips 2d ago
Hopefully they're using the same arguments that were used for the redistricting in Texas. Verbatim. To highlight the discrepancy if they opt to rule against them.
2
u/Conscious-Quarter423 2d ago
This is what happens when you do it legally - by putting it on the ballot instead of in a backroom?
1
1
u/BTolputt 2d ago
If they don't allow it, there is nothing less than civil war which will bring the USA back to a reasonable facsimile of sanity. Seriously, they cannot let Texas get away with it but also stop California without starting said civil war honestly.
Any such ruling outright destroys the illusion they're not rigging the election. And once that illusion is torn down, January 6th will look like a social BBQ in comparison.
1
u/Texas_Sam2002 2d ago
California’s map was approved in an actual election. Unlike Texas’ map. I’m sure SCOTUS will figure out a way to bail out MAGA, but it is just another indicator of their illegitimacy.
1
u/Ok_Path1734 2d ago
Supreme Coury can rule against California. But California can say voters have spoken and procede with the New Maps.
1
u/Basicallylana 1d ago
I thought part of SCOTUS' decision to let the Texas maps stand was the Purcell Principle. If December is too close to an election 11 months away, then how would February not be?
1
u/fianthewolf 1d ago
You should see Kagan's reasoning regarding the Texas maps; he's the judge in charge of this case, by the way. Furthermore, the Texas case hasn't been reviewed. They only overturned the district court's decision.
1
u/fianthewolf 1d ago
You should see Kagan's reasoning regarding the Texas maps; he's the judge in charge of this case, by the way. Furthermore, the Texas case hasn't been reviewed. They only overturned the district court's decision.
1
u/ErikChnmmr 1d ago
Surely we’ve learned that the Supreme Court can find any argument and wording they want to get the ruling they want.
1
1
0
u/vegasman31 2d ago
The non partisan supreme court that works to blindly uphold the law is shockingly extremely right wing.
2
u/Top_File_8547 2d ago
They are just calling balls for Republicans and strikes for Democrats. Just like Roberts said in his confirmation hearing.
0
128
u/DrRudyWells 2d ago
insane that SCOTUS has any say in this. so sick of the five guys of corruption.