• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Remember, the GOP also has a racial gerrymandering case against CA. Same case, but the state and plaintiff are on the other side of the political aisle.

    The goal is to make sure the SCOTUS basically has to make a call that allows or stops this mid-cycle effort for both states. It’s going to require a lot of mental gymnastics to if they decided to give TX a pass, but not CA for the same damn case.

    • zd9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      20 hours ago

      It’s going to require a lot of mental gymnastics to if they decided to give TX a pass, but not CA for the same damn case.

      That’s never been too hard for today’s conservatives, especially this SCOTUS. They’ve made a few rulings with some bullshit like “this thing is illegal in all cases except this narrow circumstance with Trump”.

      • waddle_dee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        What’s crazy to me is, they got rid of maps for Alabama in '24, but allowed them for South Carolina. When the cases were the exact same, just about.

      • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        22 hours ago

        This is it, exactly. It all comes down to “how” each state chose to implement their proposed changes. Some might be legal, while others might not.