Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/15/2025 5:32:37 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: MinorityRepublican

They’re eliminating the commission that just drew up the lines....so i’d say the lines are void.


2 posted on 08/15/2025 5:43:46 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

This is the perfect opportunity to catch the fetid Democrats red-handed, because they’ll pull out all the registration, ballot fraud, and electronic manipulation stops to win this one.

It’s life or death for them.


3 posted on 08/15/2025 6:02:32 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

It is like there are no federal laws governing all of this.


4 posted on 08/15/2025 6:03:21 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican
All the details in Democrats’ California gerrymander

It's not quite all the details...

As I posted earlier:


There may be constitutional issues with Newsom's plans.

  1. Newsom has a new map ready to go that was commissioned by California’s Democratic leadership for Paul Mitchell to develop. This map is currently unlawful because the state Constitution requires maps to be developed by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

  2. It is unlawful to put both this new map AND the Constitutional amendment suspending the California Citizens Redistricting Commission on the same ballot. Newsom must first pass the Amendment suspending the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, and then hold another special election to vote on the new map once the group that creates it is authorized by law to do so.

    Courts would call this improperly “piggy-backing” on an unratified constitutional change if they were to appear together on the same ballot, because at the time of the special election, only maps created by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission are lawful.

  3. There must be a period where the amendment can be challenged in court and survive that challenge before it can become in force. California's proposition 8 that added language about marriage between a man and a woman was ruled unconstitutional AFTER it was passed by voters. Newsom cannot rush this amendment change along with a new map and expect it to pass without judicial challenge.

  4. The 2026 candidate calendar would make it practically impossible for Newsom to get a new redistricted map passed in time. The signature gathering process must occur between December 11, 2025 - February 4, 2026. The nomination filing period is from February 9 - March 6, 2026. Candidates must know their district boundaries before collecting signatures or filing nomination papers. Therefore, any replacement map must be certified and in effect by December 11, 2025, when candidate signature gathering begins.

  5. Under California Elections Code, a statewide special election generally requires at least 88 days’ notice between calling the election and holding it. After the election, it takes several weeks to certify it. With the special election for the constitutional amendment occurring on November 4, the most practical date for a second special election would be February 17, 2026, which is well into the primary signature gathering and filing period. Adding the time it would take to certify the election, it would be too late for the new map to be in place for the 2026 mid-term elections.

The new districts could not legally be used for the June 2, 2026 primary.


-PJ

5 posted on 08/15/2025 6:05:30 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

The way these criminal creeps are going, CA could turn RED.


6 posted on 08/15/2025 6:12:31 PM PDT by Mark (DONATE ONCE every 3 months-is that a big deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

Wasn’t there a war fought over taxation without representation?

But then that is pure democracy in action. Where the minority has no say in the government.


7 posted on 08/15/2025 6:13:17 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again," )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

They came up with that redistricting plan very quickly.

Almost as if it was already in existence.


8 posted on 08/15/2025 6:15:08 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is opinion or satire. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

Time for Trump to get that new census rolling.


10 posted on 08/15/2025 6:22:35 PM PDT by eastexsteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

Funny how they disrespect the voters of California who have already voted to use an independent commission to redistrict.


11 posted on 08/15/2025 6:32:34 PM PDT by ChronicMA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

I’m waiting for the news story that starts out “A federal judge . . .”


12 posted on 08/15/2025 6:37:47 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

Ok, thanks for shooting your ball California.

Betcha Gov. DeSantis will join the fray. Florida is too deep red to have that many Dem districts.


13 posted on 08/15/2025 7:37:54 PM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

If I had my way, the law of the land would be as follows:

In each state, each party submits their version of a map of proposed congressional districts.

The length of each boundary line for each district is determined, and the total sum of all those lengths is added up. (It would be a fundamental requirement that each proposed district would be equal in population, within reason, based on census data).

Whichever map has the *smallest* sum (which should be the least gerrymandered one) is the one that would be instituted by law for that state.

And that practice might even be expanded to let any citizen in a given state propose a redistricting map.

Of course that approach would have to be binding in all 50 states to maintain fairness nationally.


14 posted on 08/15/2025 7:52:06 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

Newscum working fellow greaseball, Prickster’s, gerrymandering gig to death.


22 posted on 08/16/2025 4:30:19 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (They brought down the WTC now we're electing them to all government positions in the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

Registered Democratic voters

Telephone books from around the world.

In California you go big when votes count.


25 posted on 08/16/2025 7:36:40 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

There should be a Federal Election Law passed as an interpretation of the protection clause that requires state apportionment of districts to result in a mix or representatives that approximates the voter registration percentages.

Allow independent registrations to be split according to the ratio of major party registrations.

This would eliminate all the games of gerrymandering.


26 posted on 08/16/2025 8:55:53 AM PDT by tired&retired (Blessings )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MinorityRepublican

43 ouf of 52 is gerrymandering. That’s how it stands now.


29 posted on 08/18/2025 2:33:17 PM PDT by Fledermaus ("It turns out all we really needed was a new President!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson