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.