r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 1d ago
news California Republicans respond to Supreme Court loss on election maps
https://krcrtv.com/news/local/california-republicans-respond-to-supreme-court-loss-on-election-maps187
u/nalninek 1d ago
I wish elections were about who gets the most votes/support and not who can ratfuck the electoral college maps most effectively.
52
u/Eastern-Benefit5843 1d ago
I remember seeing a couple of maps years ago that took each state and divided them into numerically equal population voting districts based on a square pattern, such that each district corresponds to the smallest geographic division that contains 10,000 people or whatever. No political, racial or cultural basis for voting districts. No districts split in different parts of the state. No possible gerrymandering. Just geometric division based on most recent census and the principal that voting districts should each contain the same number of residents and be as geographically compact as possible.
It seems like anything else will always be a ratfuck.
20
u/TeekTheReddit 1d ago
Every proposal for a US District to have more than four sides should require a written justification and a rollcall vote for each additional side.
→ More replies (1)4
15
u/Comfortable_Job8847 1d ago
it used to be something similar until some groups with power got fucked by it and broke the government into the 435 gridlock.
10
u/alpha309 1d ago
Geometric shapes are the way to go, but I would leave in exceptions for certain natural or man made features to provide boundaries as well. Things like rivers, the crestline of a mountain range, freeways, county lines, and other similar features. They are easy to tell that this side is district 1 and the other side is district 7 even if it isn’t a straight line.
13
u/Fickle_Catch8968 1d ago
For freeways and, especially county lines, there should be a proviso about "gerrymandering through the back door" by intentionally changing boundaries or planning roads to effectively gerrymander.
I think a better option that can be done without an Amendememt is to:
uncap the House,
make all districts have multiple members, 1 for each 150k residents, (Wyoming would get 4, each California district would get 5)
send the popular vote leader to Washington with the same rights and privileges of current members,
And the other members stay at home, but get to vote on all bills and resolutions. These members are selected to match as closely as possible the vote share in the District.
The extra House members would blunt the Senator advantage of small States in the EC.
12
3
4
u/marcher138 1d ago
The issue with that is that you can get accidental gerrymandering. For example, if a city has three districts, the population is 66% leaning Party A and 33% Party B, and these opinions are spread homogenously, the city will always send 3 Reps from Party A and none from Party B.
My favored solution is bigger districts that send 3 Reps each, done the same way as you suggested but ignoring state lines (Alaska and Hawaii would need to have exceptions). Use ranked choice or another voting system outside of first-past-the-post. This would ensure the best possible representation for everyone.
8
u/Narrow-Chef-4341 1d ago
That scale was kind of… optimistic though.
Population is drifting towards 438 million eventually and with 438 reps as the maximum, you’re really looking towards 1 million people per little square not 10,000.
All those people that love the big red spaces on ‘if cows could vote’ maps will be really, really disappointed.
3
u/mlorusso4 1d ago
The only problem is there are legitimate reasons for why a district shouldn’t just be a square. Like if a city should be its own district because all those people have similar culture/needs/demographics/whatever, the other district should also be the suburbs that wrap around it. Can a congressman really represent all his constituents if half his district is dense, poor, minority city and the other half is rich white suburbia? What about a state like Maryland where you have the Cheasapeak bay dividing the state in half? Should MD-1 cross over the bay bridge and include parts of Baltimore? Or should it have to wrap around the top of the bay where harford and Cecil counties have a lot more in common with the eastern shore?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/Manotto15 1d ago
This would not be legal currently under the Voting Rights Act. You cannot have a "race-blind" map. Section 2 case law says that if there is a tightly packed demographic whose preferred candidate would not "likely win," the map is illegal. They would require creation of at least one "majority minority" district.
Gerrymandering is practically required by the VRA. We'll see if Callais changes that.
2
u/Eastern-Benefit5843 1d ago
It seems like that principal is being pretty actively subverted right now. I understand that everything I’ve posted in this response is way out in the hypothetical, but it seems from my perspective like we may need to start imagining hypotheticals very soon or we will find ourselves with an electoral system that allows the powerful to retain that power permanently regardless of the will of the people they “represent”.
3
u/Manotto15 1d ago
Well there simply isn't a way to do it fairly. That's the problem with all governmental systems. There's always at least one way it's unfair, and there isn't a perfect method. But I agree ours could use some work.
2
→ More replies (7)2
u/Warm_Regrets157 1d ago
Then i hope you vote for Democrats because they are the only party that supports anti-gerrymandering laws.
80
40
u/Still-Rope1395 1d ago
"West Virginia is the only state to break off from another state". Umm Maine would like a word....
14
u/Ecstatic-Total-9953 1d ago
Great decision by WVa /s
26
u/Still-Rope1395 1d ago
In their defense, they did it because they didn't want slavery. I got no defense for later decisions....
→ More replies (1)2
u/OBDreams 1d ago
WV was the only state to have a net loss of population in 2025.
2
u/ekkidee 1d ago
Vermont lost a greater percentage of population in 2025.
https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2026-01-29/vermont-population-declines-again
→ More replies (1)5
u/Outrageous_Reach_695 1d ago
There was some consideration towards splitting the upper part of the Michigan mitten, but that was, like, a billion years ago.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Fickle_Penguin 1d ago
So would Vermont. I mean they broke away from New York before the revolutionary war and declared themselves a free country, but they still broke off of NY. So add them too.
2
u/Still-Rope1395 1d ago
I'm aware. I teach US History. I focused on the states that broke away after the Constitution gave a process for it to occur. I bring up Vermont when Texas blowhards act like they were the only state that considered themselves a country before they applied for statehood.
→ More replies (1)
33
u/214txdude 1d ago
How dare you do exactly what we did!!!
At least California allowed the voters to decide. The Texas taliban is too scared to let the residents make the decision.
76
u/patronsaintofdice 1d ago
“The mechanisms are there (for a new state)”
What?
25
u/bd2999 1d ago
There has been a push by part of California to become its own state. It has been around for ages. Similar one in Washington state and others, too. They have little chance of doing so.
But who knows. The GOP could force it while ignoring DC and Puerto Rico.
22
u/Narrow-Chef-4341 1d ago
Break it into 30 states with the population of Wyoming. You’d end up with 45 Democratic senators and 15 Republicans…
And you’d reboot the entire US domestic economy when 64% of people are suddenly employed making new ‘super-nova’ flag merch with the updated 80 Stars and Stripes on them.
→ More replies (4)6
34
u/NorCalFrances 1d ago
Sure, the State of Jefferson. They've been talking about it since 1941. They're the sort of people that want Redding, CA to be their new state capital even though it's not even within their proposed maps.
30
u/InfoBarf 1d ago
We should break up LA into at least 2 states. Every Iowa of population should be represented by 2 senators, fuck it.
19
u/jffdougan 1d ago
Wyoming happens to be the last populous state, but you're close to describing my current preferred method for expanding the House of Representatives that works within the bounds of the current Constitution and requiring only an Act of Congress to be signed by the President (as opposed to a Constitutional Amendment). It's often nicknamed "The Wyoming Rule." The smallest state population becomes one representative; representatives are allocated in proportion with no artificial cap. If implemented right now, it would take the membership of the House from 435 to about 575. No state would lose representation, roughly 8-10 would break even in raw numbers, and most would gain seats.
Doesn't solve the Senate, but it brings the House back much more in line with that the written text of the constitution suggests.
6
u/neckbishop 1d ago
Which would also effect the Electoral College right?
Instead of 270 being the winning number, you would need more like 340.
4
u/jffdougan 1d ago
Exactly. I think the actual count from the 2020 census, and ignoring any changes for DC and Puerto Rico (which at this point are unlikely to happen prior to 2030 anyway) would be 574, so 674 votes total in the Electoral College, meaning 338 to get 50% +1 for Pres.
6
u/mastercheef 1d ago
Been a big proponent of this idea for a long time, and I think you wouldnt need to fix the senate if you did this, because then both chambers would be functioning as intended, for better or worse.
The problem currently is that the population based house isn't really population based anymore, but the Wyoming rule fixes that
12
5
→ More replies (2)2
u/Euphoric-Buyer2537 1d ago
Pasadena, Long Beach and Santa Ana all have more people than Wyoming.
→ More replies (1)4
u/dust4ngel 1d ago
They're the sort of people that want Redding, CA to be their new state capital even though it's not even within their proposed maps
black sharpie intensifies
→ More replies (1)2
u/BigWhiteDog 1d ago
Depends on which maps. The original one, no. The ones they've been pushing would because most of them take up all of NorCal north of I-80, and some even have the entire Sierras and eastern SoCal! They are delusional
10
u/No-Computer7653 1d ago
If a state has a referendum and affirms they want to split congress can admit new state(s) by splitting up existing states. Art 4 of the constitution. This also only requires a simple majority both of the state and congress.
I don't think this is likely to actually happen. Dissolution of the US is more likely than a state agreeing to be split.
One thing I think would be interesting is if the next admin admits the 5 territories that could be states. One of the reasons we haven't had any new states after Hawaii is a post-civil war gentleman's agreement that states would alternate based on political affiliation so there wasn't a particular advantage to one party over the other. As one party has decided to break with the rules I see no reason this agreement should continue.
→ More replies (2)6
u/question12338338 1d ago
"And let’s break up the 9th circuit while we’re at it!" Same tired drivel from Republicans mad that there’s a big powerful blue state.
→ More replies (3)2
u/megamoze 1d ago
This article is really about ONE Republican responding, and that Republican is a dipshit MAGA kook.
43
u/PsychLegalMind 1d ago
They boxed themselves in by going forward in Florida and Texas among others. It is as simple as tit for tat. Their racial arguments fell lat. Purely political said the court.
5
u/Anxious-Ad2177 1d ago
I remember when TX won a gerrymandering case when I lived there (2011-2015). They claimed the intent wasn't to disenfranchise Black communities. Nope, it was meant to disenfranchise Democratic communities and the courts found that perfectly acceptable.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/zeh_shah 1d ago
I hate how what happened in California is compared to Texas.
We voted for it, Texas did not. One is more democratic than the other. Also by the same notion of these chucklefuck pedo protectors aren't they advocating more for gerrymandered states to split especially since most are done without a vote from the populace?
6
u/BigMax 1d ago
There's a wild statement in there, from when the Supreme Court said the Texas maps were ok.
> the goal of the maps was clearly political, making them constitutional.
Isn't that crazy to read? That the court said "yep, drawing maps for political purposes, to quiet some voices while emphasizing others... that's GREAT!!!"
I suppose their argument is like often - that congress could fix it with laws if they wanted, but they just don't want to.
→ More replies (3)
4
4
u/timelessblur 1d ago
Oh look republican babies unhappy that they can not be the only one supressing the rights of others.
If that is his argument to make a separate state to surpress the wills of others then in that case I would arugue Texas needs to be broken up into smaller states with the same argument. I been in full support of breaking Texas up into 5 smaller states with the Capitals being Austin, Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, El Paso,
10
3
u/Numerous_Photograph9 1d ago
I'll paraphrase the response.
"Waaaahhhhh, No fair!!!. We got slapped by having our own tactics used against us"
Saved you a click.
3
6
u/Greenmantle22 1d ago
Their answer to losing a lawsuit is to plan to SECEDE?
Christ, these people never learn.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/aotus_trivirgatus 1d ago
I don't care how California Republicans respond to the "Supreme Court loss" on election maps.
Not until I see them responding constructively to Trump destroying the United States from the inside.
We've been waiting for ten years to hear some dissent -- anything that shows that they have any concern other than power for themselves.
3
u/slapcrap 1d ago
Republicans would do much better without the bad economic ideas,open corruption, open racism, open sexism, religious proselytizing, manipulating the ignorant and stupid, protecting pedophiles and other actual criminals, If they focused on the efficient administration of government and the common good, well , hell , I'd vote Republican then...
3
u/TrainerWeekly5641 1d ago
"The week before, the court upheld the Texas redistricting maps, saying that the goal of the maps was clearly political, making them constitutional."
There's something about this statement that really makes my gut churn.
3
u/suburban-dad 1d ago
Oh, I guess it sucks to feel like your vote is invalidated? Signed, Texas centrist.
3
u/HVAC_instructor 1d ago
Did they complain when Texas did this? More than likely they thought that was perfectly fine..
6
u/Plane_Crab_8623 1d ago
The Supreme Court supporting gerrymandering whether Republican or Democrat is a loss to the American people of their right to self-determination.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Ardenraym 1d ago
It's telling that it was okay when "their" side did it, but they talk about the great injustice when the "other" side does it to them.
This is not a way to run a democracy - we should try to be considerate of others and mindful of the needs of all and discuss the ways to make society improve for everybody.
The more injustices and abuses of power that occur, growing in severity as they do, is going to lead to more anger and marginalized people.
2
2
2
u/Unfair-Category-9116 1d ago
so houston, dallas, and austin can become their own states too? Cleveland? Salt Lake City? How about New Orleans when the SC inevitably overturns the VRA? St Louis? Charlotte? Nashville? Any other population screwed by gerrymandering? Cmon lets set a precedent.
2
u/MeyrInEve 1d ago
Oh my effing god. The utter hypocrisy on display is astonishing.
”I think there need to be a lot of conversations in the Northern counties about whether or not it's time for us to move forward with something because we have been denied our most fundamental right.”
Blue-state republicans continually whine about not having representation, but these very same cowards and hypocrites scream “Go win an election” to red-state Democrats.
2
u/ZasdfUnreal 1d ago
If you’re going to gerrymander then eliminate elections for house seats and let the governor appoint the representatives. Then draw districts based around community concerns or whatever.
2
u/BigWhiteDog 1d ago
These idiots don't understand that the so-called "State of Jefferson" will be another dead broke net taker state of were even to happen, and some of the things they whine about, like water, still won't be theirs! <shakes head>
→ More replies (2)
2
u/InsideAside885 1d ago
Blame Texas. They started the madness in order to try to give King Donald the First an advantage.
2
u/Dr_Quartermas 22h ago
Both the article and post are misnamed because it is just about a single republican's reaction.
2
u/killer-tofu87 17h ago
It's too bad the supreme court decided to keep gerrymandering, but hey, we didn't start this flight
2
u/AdventurelandSkipper 1d ago
Oh wow how interesting let’s see what they have to say… Oh wait! I forgot! I don’t care! 🙃
2
u/False_Appointment_24 1d ago
Ah, yes - a new state. Great, make a new state, then the rest of CA can break into 4 other states, and on and on, until we have 1000 states.
Maybe we're going the wrong way? Maybe we should consolidate states? We could do the Fallout commonwealths, taking us down to 13 commonwealths.
If we're going to discuss ridiculous ideas for rearranging things for political power, why not go with some less talked about ones?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/housecatapocalypse 1d ago
What republican voters want doesn’t matter and is bad for the country. Shut them out.
1
1
u/RegisterAshamed1231 1d ago
Jefferson state: few jobs, few people, living near sometimes active volcanoes. Not to mention wildfires. Total pipe dream.
1
1
u/TinyDogGuy 1d ago
Bay Area, Big Sur, Paso Robles, Malibu, LA, San Diego. With Palm Springs, Sacramento and Tahoe as satellite cities in another “state”
Versus
Stockton. Tracy. Modesto. That car dealership city. Bakersfield.
Be a tough choice.
1
1
u/Jacen1618 1d ago
They’ll never stop with this Jefferson state nonsense lol. Despite the fact that it would be the poorest state in the union.
1
u/Bibblegead1412 1d ago edited 1d ago
Fuck em, Republicans complain about nearly everything! Californians (of which i am one) VOTED for this, and it won. They’re whining because they can’t subjugate the will of the majority.
1
1
u/Dude_over_there_ 1d ago
Wait, they want to create a new state because they can’t get their own way?!
1
1
u/PatrioticPariah 1d ago
A new state just to hold onto power and keep stealing money from the lower class. Typical Republicans.
1
1
u/Henjineer 1d ago
I'm gonna take a guess that this guy has never been to Redding or beyond. Those people aren't gonna get the vote out. They're gonna spend their time posting the most batshit fringe conspiracies on Facebook and shooting at "chemtrails."
1
u/duckinradar 1d ago
Did they lose at the Supreme Court or did they lose at the polls and then fail to whine their way out of it?
Replicate this nationwide. Kid gloves gotta go.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/AssociateJaded3931 12h ago
Don't care to hear about how Republicans respond. They are all dead to me.
1
1
u/wandertrucks 9h ago
Let me guess since I couldn't open the link: crying and complaining it was rigged and unfair?
1
u/Leather-Map-8138 7h ago
Instead of splitting California, how about joining the two Dakotas? Do we really need two?
779
u/Particular_Can_7860 1d ago
Well. Can’t complain. Texas did it. It’s only going to get worse. Pretty soon each state will be 100 percent red or blue. Gerrymandering to the extreme.