Texas Republicans set to approve Trump-backed congressional map to protect party's majority

Aug 20 (Reuters) - Texas legislators on Wednesday took up a new state congressional map intended to flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats in next year's midterm elections, after dozens of Democratic lawmakers ended a two-week walkout that had temporarily blocked passage.

Republican legislators, who have dominated Texas politics for over two decades, have undertaken a rare mid-decade redistricting at the behest of President Donald Trump, who is seeking to improve his party's odds of preserving its narrow U.S. House of Representatives majority amid political headwinds.

The map, which should easily pass the Texas House by a simple majority vote but will have to be reconciled with the state Senate's version, has triggered a national redistricting war, with governors of both parties threatening to initiate similar efforts in other states.

Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom is advancing an effort to redraw his state's map to flip five Republican seats. Democratic-controlled California is the nation's most populous state while Republican-led Texas is the second most populous. The Texas map would shift conservative voters into districts currently held by Democrats and combine some districts that Democrats hold.

Other Republican states -- including Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Missouri -- are moving forward with or considering their own redistricting efforts, as are Democratic states such as Maryland and Illinois.

Redistricting typically occurs every 10 years after the U.S. Census to account for population changes, and mid-decade redistricting has historically been unusual. In many states, lawmakers manipulate the lines to favor their party over the opposition, a practice known as gerrymandering.

Texas Democrats on Wednesday raised multiple objections to and questions about the measure, slowing debate.

Thank you for referencing that article Red Badger, E. Pluribus Unum.

California Supreme Court Gives Gavin Newsom Green Light to Gerrymander

This post was made for the following thread.

California Supreme Court Gives Gavin Newsom Green Light to Gerrymander (8.21.25)

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Contrasting the general definition of gerrymandering with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A), that section a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred, and noting that Texas Republicans are arguably reversing Democratic gerrymandering (8.20.25), I don't understand why judges, who should have at least heard of that section in law school, would support gerrymandering imo.

The manipulation may involve "cracking" (diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts [all emphases added]) or "packing" (diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts). Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents. Wayne Dawkins, a professor at Morgan State University, describes it as politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians. —Gerrymandering (Non-FR)

Given the zero tolerance, "hair trigger" wording of Section 2, California judges have arguably made themselves accessory to state violation of that section, evidenced by their support of gerrymandering.

Excerpted from 14A:

"But when the right to vote at any election"
"is denied to any"
"or in any way abridged,"
"Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

In fact, the judges should ideally be removed from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for open rebellion against Section 2 imo.

"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a [all emphasis added] Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

The problem with Section 3 is that the deep state career Congress, which post-17th Amendment ratification voters keep reelecting for unknown reasons, would conceivably vote to put them back on the bench.

So let's forget about gerrymandering for now. After all, Democrats evidently have other ways to steal ..er..um.. win elections apart from Section 2-violating (imo) gerrymandering.

Patriots need to concentrate on Trump's legacy for the 2026 midterm elections.

More specifically, Trump's red tsunami of supporters, evidenced by his record-breaking win in 2024 elections, need to permanently preserve his legacy by making the repeal of the 16th Amendment (direct taxes) the main talking point of 2026 elections. Trump supporters need to primary all candidates for state and federal public offices who refuse to publicly promise to support a resolution to the states in January 2027 for a new amendment to the Constitution that repeals that amendment.

The 16th Amendment is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime front-ended by deep state Congress that would probably vote to let California judges have their jobs back.

Consider that a resolution to repeal 16A was introduced as recently as 2021, but was unsurprisingly ignored.

We'll call the repeal amendment Trump's Boston Tea Party II Amendment.

The 17th Amendment, popular voting for federal senators, needs to disappear too.

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature. —Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

Once unconstitutional federal taxing and spend is stopped, the states will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues that they probably won't know what to do with imo, healthcare, including taking care of the poor, and education on the short list of priorities.

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.