[shield]

No one seems to be stating the really important decision made by the Supremes.

RE-DISTRICTING CAN TAKE PLACE ANYTIME WHEN A STATE CHANGES PARTY COMPLICTION. NO LONGER EVERY 10 YEARS...THIS IS HUGE....THE DIMWITS HAVE LOST BIG-TIME ON THAT DECISION!!!!

[HostileTerritory]

THE DIMWITS HAVE LOST BIG-TIME ON THAT DECISION!!!!

Well, they lost in the case of Texas, but moving forward, that's hardly a partisan decision. Most big state maps today were drawn by Republicans (PA, MI, OH, FL, TX, VA, GA) or for bipartisan incumbent-protection (NY, IL, CA, NJ). We have more shifts in state legislatures now than in the past so we'll have 'RATs undoing Republican maps, Republicans redrawing incumbent-protection maps, you name it. But all the big gains from undoing Democrat control of redistricting were won in 1992 and 2002.

[superdad]

You got it. Since there can be redistricting at any time, the court requires redistricting in its opinion and the GOP still controls Texas, I suspect the Republicans will draw an entirely new map that gives them even more seats.

[Diddle E. Squat]

No one seems to be stating the really important decision made by the Supremes. RE-DISTRICTING CAN TAKE PLACE ANYTIME WHEN A STATE CHANGES PARTY COMPLICTION. NO LONGER EVERY 10 YEARS...THIS IS HUGE....THE DIMWITS HAVE LOST BIG-TIME ON THAT DECISION!!!!

I wouldn't be so sure on that. From my layman's point of view it appears that they ruled that there was nothing wrong with a legislature redistricting in order to replace a court-drawn plan with a legislature's plan. An elected legislature (the arm of the people) replacing an unelected court plan is different than a newly elected legislature replacing the plan of a prior elected legislature.