The language in the original legislative proposal (Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8) specified that California's new map would become operative if Texas, Florida, or another state adopted a new, non-federally-mandated congressional district map between August 1, 2025, and January 1, 2031.

Ah, yes, it is, and not just Texas. So it won't happen if nobody else does it.

EDIT: This was old info. That part was removed. So it still stands.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They really removed that part? Why

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I'm not sure, but I'm not complaining. It has an expiration date. Fascists don't fight fair and neither should we.

[–] end0fline@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not a law person, but to the best of my knowledge, its OK to gerrymander on party lines, just not racial lines. I think California would be fine here. They are being sued as well so we will see how it goes.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Prop 50 actually specifies that it will only come into effect if another state (not just Texas) does it.

EDIT: That part was removed, so it actually still stands.

[–] end0fline@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I read this on the sfgate:

Prop. 50 originally included “trigger language,” redistricting expert Paul Mitchell explained to SFGATE, that stipulated that California’s map would be implemented only if Texas carried on with its plan to add five Republican seats. If Texas decided to not move forward, then California would not either, even if voters approved Prop. 50.

That language was taken out at the last minute this summer after the Texas Legislature expedited its approval of the map in August and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott quickly signed it into law.

source

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Well, well, so it was! I'm not complaining.