Posted on 11/11/2025 12:28:01 PM PST by Signalman
That’s how the dems do it. To use a RISK analogy, they spread their armies as broadly, but as thinly, as possible. Then they use loaded dice (election fraud) to win all of the resulting close battles. Tight margins in which individual elections are won by a few thousand votes are ideal for perpetrating vote fraud. Only need to “discover” a few boxes of mystery ballots in a car trunk somewhere and you’re in.
Insightful.
That’s why the Dems’ propaganda media said again and again “the disproven vote fraud” and “the attempt to overturn an honest and fair election.”
Methinks they protest too much.
Dims are now a federally protected class.
Perhaps this ruling can be cited in the suit to overturn California’s Prop 50?
It’s not clear if the judge is a state or federal judge - the description of being a “district” judge could be either.
If she is interpreting state law, need to see what the law says. It’s clearly not federal law.
It's not like the democrats would ever do such a thing, right judge?
Yeah sure, but it won't be.
The entire redistricting issue is going to the Supreme Court.
For decades, the democRATS gerrymander districts to exclude, as much as possible, Republican representation. To a ridiculous point. They used racist laws to achieve what they couldn’t do with votes. Only recently, the Republicans have begun to fight back in some red states and the dems don’t like that.
This will all need to be ironed out. Any state that is, say, 45% republican ought to have representation roughly matching that. Not exactly, as that is impossible with the lack of granularity (way too many people per representative) but the days of basically silencing conservative people are about to end.
At least I hope so anyway.
Note to Utah ….ignore the judge…no authority.
AFAIK, the only reason for a US district court to stop a gerrymander is some sort of racial discrimination, and that was not an issue in this Utah matter, which would mean this is another instance of a judge playing partisan politics.
Judges and their election inference
No queens.
Where is the part in the constitution that gives judges the right to draw congressional districts?
Tell that to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the p*ssies who call themselves Republicans from PA!!!
1. Anyone who thinks this is “shocking” hasn’t been paying attention. The judge was given 3 maps to choose from. Two were submitted by Democrats. The judge is a liberal. QED.
2. Not only does this map no longer split up Salt Lake City, which is a Democrat shithole and its district (though still marginal) is probably a goner, the map creates a SECOND Rat-winnable district in Salt Lake County. The parts of the county outside the Salt Lake City limits are not as bad as the city (duh), but some areas ARE quite bad.
The final effect, especially if there is an upcoming anti-Trump “blue” wave in 2026 a la 2018, will be to have 2 of Utah’s 4 districts in Democrat hands.
So 50% D representatives... in freakin’ UTAH.
Now that’s some damn fine gerrymandering. No different than having 50% Republicans in Maryland (soon to be 0% Republicans, probably) or Illinois, if such a thing can be imagined.
When you get into a gerrymandering war with the all-time experts, and have the judiciary stacked against you too, it may not be a bad idea to “expect the unexpected”.
I bet the judge drawn map looks more gerrymandered than the legislature’s map. Most of them do - they were actually drawn before for the sake of “fairness” to give Dems a competitive district or two. The new Missouri and Texas maps look more compact / contiguous than those that were there before.
Regardless, she did not have this authority, and the legislature should take action to make that quite clear to her.
“The same legal standard they’re applying to Utah can be applied to blue states.”
No, it can’t. The linked article explains the judge’s ruling that “the legislature’s map violated a 2018 voter-approved redistricting reform measure banning partisan gerrymandering.” So it’s particular to Utah. SCOTUS has held, in allowing a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina, that partisan gerrymandering doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution.
As for California, the proposed Democratic gerrymander involved taking redistricting decisions away from a commission. That change required an amendment to the California constitution, which passed — but again, that’s applicable to only one state.
Texas had no statutory or constitutional restriction on partisan gerrymandering, so the GOP put through a redistricting that’s expected to shift five seats from Democratic to Republican. The Republicans could get away with that in Texas, but, again, that doesn’t mean that they (or the Dems) can get away with it anywhere else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.