512

California Supreme Court declines to stop Newsom's redistricting plan (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The California Supreme Court will not prevent Democrats from moving forward Thursday with a plan to redraw congressional districts.

Republicans in the Golden State had asked the state's high court to step in and temporarily block the redistricting efforts, arguing that Democrats — who are racing to put the plan on the ballot later this year — had skirted a rule requiring state lawmakers to wait at least 30 days before passing newly introduced legislation.

But in a ruling late Wednesday, the court declined to act, writing that the Republican state lawmakers who filed the suit had "failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

gerrymandering becomes less effective/ more risky the more extreme you do it, to when you take it to it's extreme or go past it, it backfires.

[Citation needed]

Blue states have largely kept their powder dry

Nope. They may not have been anywhere near as blatant about it as the fascist party, but Dem leadership around the country haven't been shy about giving themselves bigger incumbent advantages via redistricting when allowed to either.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

gerrymandering becomes less effective/ more risky the more extreme you do it, to when you take it to it’s extreme or go past it, it backfires.

[Citation needed]

Absolutely fair. But first, packing and cracking algorithm. Gerrymandering works by manipulating district lines to maximize one party’s advantage through packing (shoving the other party’s voters into a few districts they win overwhelmingly) and cracking (splitting the rest across many districts so they lose narrowly). In packed districts votes are “wasted”: all votes for losing candidates, plus surplus votes beyond 50% in winning districts.

Here’s a toy example. Suppose there are 100 voters split evenly: 50 Party A, 50 Party B, across 5 districts of 20 voters each. If districts are drawn fairly, each district is about 10-10, so the outcome is 2-3 or 3-2 seats either way depending on swing. Now imagine a gerrymander. Party A packs 18 of Party B’s voters into one district (B wins 18-2) and cracks the remaining 32 B voters across the other four districts (so each of those is A=13, B=8). Party A now wins 4–1 despite an even statewide vote. But notice the fragility: if just 3 voters per cracked district switch or turn out differently (so A=10, B=11), Party B flips all four of those districts at once. That’s the backfire. Create razor-thin margins, and extreme gerrymanders make the system highly sensitive to small shifts.

Slight or moderate gerrymandering wont create this effect necessarily, but extreme gerrymandering in purplish places inherently mean you are spreading the butter over too much bread.

More on the matter: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.09381

this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025

512 points (99.4% liked)

politics

30941 readers

3811 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News