I’ve been saying right along....Win is won by “get out the votes” and pure mathematics.
Does she mean like all the Dem states like California where GOP voters have almost no seats despite voting due to the current gerrymandered CA districts?
That’s the way it works.
To be appealed, overturned, and done.
Current gerrymandered crooked California:
“...Democrats in California won 83% of the seats off 61% of the vote (a pro-Democratic efficiency gap of 11%).”
” Democrats won their three new seats in 2024 by extremely narrow margins. A switch of just 8,833 votes out of 15 million cast statewide would have been enough to reverse the outcomes in all three.”
——Public Policy Institute of California.
Absent McCarthy’s arm-twisting in D.C. and with a powerless superminority in both chambers of the state Legislature, California Republicans appear headed for an era of obsolescence, at least for the next five years.
Proposition 50’s landslide win owes its success in part to the abject failure of a disarrayed No on 50 campaign low on funds and unable to keep up with the Yes side’s deluge of savvy advertising.
-—Local News Bay Area.
If Utah really pass a 2018 law that banned partisan redistricting, and if SLC was carved up into four districts to ensure that all four Utah seats were GOP....
Maybe the judge was right.
And again, the big "if" here was if Utah really did have such a law. I don't know whether or not that is true.
This lady judge will eventually follow the busloads of mini judges getting stuffed. It will take a bit of time in this case.
Only the legislature has that power.
This is textbook how empires fall.
Hasn’t the Supreme Court said that Federal Courts have no business in state elections or districting.
So this dimbulb judge ruled that partisan gerrymandering is wrong if it favors Republicans, but okie dokie if it favors democrats. What impartial logic!
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?
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.