Said the troll.

Just block them. I am. Then I hide post. Trolls need to stay on x or whatever right wing bs they follow.

And right after that, they need to drink bleach and dart out into the middle of the freeway. (I'm just creatively embellishing. Don't mind me!😉)

Yeah they ignore the difference between the two situations.. Texas did not let the people of Texas vote for their redistricting, the Republican party has done it to maintain power regardless of what Texas citizens think and they did it to help benefit the felon at his request.

Phhhhhht.

I don't know who needs to know... but the California redistricting is being put to a vote by the people. The process of direct democracy, which allows citizens to propose and vote on laws, policy, or constitutional amendments, is fundamentally nonpartisan. Why try to muddy the waters on the issue?

Ya but obviously there are limits to that. I’m sure Wyoming could get slavery to pass if they put it on the ballot, that doesn’t mean it would stand. What I’m wondering is if by saying their redistricting was a direct response to TX partisan efforts that they have made the same admission.

Don't get me wrong I see what you're trying to say but I believe the situation is more nuanced than that. Now after the convo I don't think you're a troll you just had a genuine question. If it's any consolation lol at this point I'm sure a few states if they could would definitely vote for slavery

While California yes they are also pursuing a partisan gerrymander, but they’re doing so through a public referendum. That gives the people the final say, which preserves democratic legitimacy in a way Texas did not. Newsom has a leg to stand on in this I don't believe they can say challenge it.

The deal is They carried out a mid-decade redistricting with no voter input, largely at the urging of a president seeking partisan advantage. That undermines democratic norms because redistricting was done outside of the normal census cycle and with no check from the people

Second you're pushing the argument to an absurd extreme... Perhaps to undermine. The slavery example is not realistic in 2025. No state could legally pass it, and even if a hypothetical majority voted for it, the federal constitution would override it.

Ok I kind of get what you're trying to say but...First, bad analogy because slavery is explicitly unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment. It cannot be reinstated by any state ballot measure, so it’s not comparable to a legal redistricting vote.