677
Judge rejects ‘racially gerrymandered’ maps in Texas that gave Republicans extra districts
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
677 points (99.1% liked)
News
33196 readers
2508 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nice. So the 5 blue districts we just added in California aren't just canceling out those red seats, they're just adding 5 blue ones.
Now Illinois, Minnesota, and New York should step up.
Red states have been shamelessly gerrymandering for so long, that they have very few options for improvement left. The only reason they see a window now is because SCOTUS has shown a willingness to accept race-based suppression, which they wouldn't before. But they been so close for so long, that their moves are still limited.
But Dems have remained stupidly committed to fair play all along, despite it not being returned. So they have lots of potential to gain some seats and deny other seats to MAGA, and the Dems should exploit that potential RUTHLESSLY. The MAGAs surely would, if the courts would let them. Why should the Dems protect MAGAs from themselves, especially since THEY started it? This was a fight they started, and Ds should finish it, Ender-style.
afaik those laws only kick in if texas goes through with their plan
I think that was in the original text but was removed before passage because Texas has already passed their gerrymander
lame. mitch mcconnell taught us better
playing by the rules as usual :( it should have been a punishment - not just an equaliser… there’s no reason for them not to try again next time
California’s law is only Mutually Assured Destruction. It applies in response to the gerrymandering of other states.
They pulled the reciprocity clause out at the last minute after Texas passed it's bill.
Womp womp.
Its probably for the better. Short of a clause triggered by eliminating the congressional district system entirely in favor of proportional voting, the idea of "counter-gerrymandering" clause is a major legal hazard'
The supreme court, for instance, might zero in on such a clause and cynically say California is 'violating the 10th amendment rights of other states' instead of having to find a way to strike it out under 14th amendment provisions (an amendment which the current supreme court hates)
This will probably just get appealed to the supreme court so they can further gut the civil rights act.