By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Texas’s gerrymandered maps were upheld, with the court citing the closeness to the election and the lack of illegal racial basis. The decision reflects the court’s trend of limiting anti-gerrymandering protections, raising questions about whether they will apply the same standards to California. The ruling potentially equalizes the actions of both states, which could lead to further challenges. Meanwhile, President Trump reversed his stance on affordability, dismissing it as a Democratic ploy despite previously embracing the issue and the increasing economic concerns. Lastly, MyPillow founder Mike Lindell filed paperwork to run for governor of Minnesota, continuing his involvement in politics despite ongoing legal battles over his election conspiracy theories.
Read the original article here
Texas Gets a Pass for a Gerrymandering Free-For-All. Will California Be Given the Same?
Let’s dive right in: The question of whether California will be treated the same as Texas in the realm of gerrymandering is a loaded one, isn’t it? The very premise brings to the forefront the perceived political biases that influence the Supreme Court. The general consensus appears to be a resounding “no,” with the expectation that California, a state often at odds with the conservative leanings of the current Supreme Court, will not be granted the same leeway as Texas. It’s almost as if the game is rigged, isn’t it?
The crux of the matter, as many see it, lies in the differing motivations behind the redistricting efforts. In Texas, the process seems to have been driven by the legislature, potentially with less regard for the will of the voters. In California, the effort was put to a vote, seemingly adhering to the democratic process. Despite the Supreme Court’s reasoning for permitting Texas’s map, the implication of the court’s justifications creates a potential double standard. They said the legislature has good intent, and voters don’t. That opens the door for inconsistency.
This potential inconsistency highlights a deeper concern: the erosion of faith in the rule of law. If the Supreme Court appears to make decisions based on political leanings rather than established precedent, the very foundation of the legal system is threatened. States might feel emboldened to disregard rulings they don’t agree with, leading to a fragmented and chaotic legal landscape. This could be interpreted as a potential descent into anarchy, as the will of the rulers – in this case, the court’s perceived political leanings – supersedes the will of the voters.
There’s a shared sentiment that the court’s decision-making process appears to be anything but consistent. It’s widely speculated that the court may employ different standards for the two states, potentially finding a way to invalidate California’s redistricting while upholding Texas’s. The fact that the court has the ability to do so, without the need for strict adherence to precedent, is what makes the situation so concerning. The court could point to *some* factual difference to justify a different ruling.
The impact of such a scenario would be significant. It would underscore the perception of a court more interested in advancing a partisan agenda than upholding the principles of fairness and equal justice. It would further fuel the narrative of a rigged system, where the rules are selectively applied to favor certain political outcomes. The implications would extend far beyond the specific issue of redistricting, eroding public trust in institutions and fueling political polarization.
Some suggest that California should simply ignore any unfavorable rulings from the Supreme Court. But in reality, what would be the impact? Is it possible for California to simply go about its business, seating representatives based on its own maps, regardless of what the court says? That raises the question of enforcement, and the power the court actually wields. The answer is likely in the negative because the state’s congressional delegation would likely be blocked from being seated. The resulting political chaos is something that most people are hoping to avoid.
Ultimately, the issue of gerrymandering is closely linked to the broader challenges facing American democracy. It raises questions about fairness, representation, and the integrity of the electoral process. If the Supreme Court appears to condone partisan gerrymandering in some cases while penalizing it in others, the result is a situation that further damages our country. The question of whether California gets the same pass as Texas is not just about redistricting. It’s about the very future of the American experiment.