TOUCHDOWN! said:
ReThuglicans can't win without cheating.
TOUCHDOWN! said:
ReThuglicans can't win without cheating.
Democrats will pass a redistricting amendment in January that will then go to voters in April. If approved - Democrats will redraw the 11 congressional districts drawing 10 zones that will be predominately Democratic and 1 heavy Republican.
— Tim Anderson (@AssocAnderson) December 4, 2025
Virginia will go from a 6-5… pic.twitter.com/bz2L0CE9Qu
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has permitted Texas to keep its newly redistricted, GOP-favorable congressional map in 2026.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 4, 2025
Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissent.https://t.co/XCzbZBBhzH pic.twitter.com/1Wy2M4AU0i
Justice Alito hints at what took so long for this Texas ruling to issue... pic.twitter.com/NTmqG4vOto
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) December 5, 2025
Quote:
First, the dissent does not disputebecause it is indisputablethat the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.
Second, the clear-error standard of review does not apply here because the "'trial court base[d] its findings upon a mistaken impression of applicable legal principles.'" Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 18 (2024). Because of the correlation between race and partisan preference, litigants can easily use claims of racial gerrymandering for partisan ends. Cooper v. Harris, 581 U. S. 285, 335 (2017) (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). To prevent this, our precedents place the burden on the challengers "to disentangle race and politics." Alexander, 602 U. S., at 6. Thus, when the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State's allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted. Id., at 34; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 258 (2001). Although respondents' experts could have easily produced such a map if that were possible, they did not, giving rise to a strong inference that the State's map was indeed based on partisanship, not race. Neither the
duration of the District Court's hearing nor the length of its majority opinion provides an excuse for failing to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our case law.
🚨 JUST IN — Indiana Senate Elections Committee advances 9-0 GOP congressional map by a 6-3 vote.
— VoteHub (@VoteHub) December 9, 2025
The final floor vote is scheduled for Thursday at 1:30pm.
CURRENT MIDTERM REDISTRICTING STATUS:
— Matt Morse (@MattMorseTV) December 9, 2025
Confirmed Democrat Gain:
California: D+5
Utah: D+1
Total: D+6
Pending Democrat Gain:
Virginia: D+2
Maryland: D+1
Total: D+3
Confirmed Republican Gain:
Texas: R+5
Missouri: R+1
Indiana: R+2
Ohio: R+2
North Carolina: R+1
Total: R+11
Pending… pic.twitter.com/8AkO5ewLsK
#NEW: A preliminary injunction hearing on the new California congressional map will begin before a three judge panel at 9:00 AM on Monday, December 15, 2025. pic.twitter.com/i6868VJytc
— The Redistrict Network (@RedistrictNet) December 11, 2025
Quote:
The Indiana Senate on Thursday voted down a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts to produce two more GOP-friendly seats, rejecting President Donald Trump's months-long campaign to pressure the Republican supermajority in the deep-red state to bend to his will.
The 31-19 vote saw 21 Republicans join 10 Democrats in voting down the proposed map that would have positioned the GOP, which currently holds seven of Indiana's nine US House seats, for a sweep of all nine seats in next year's midterm elections.
Virginia’s new AG Jay Jones, who took office today out with an opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed redistricting amendment (so quick, in fact, that his letterhead still has his predecessor’s name). https://t.co/llRZEYoKoL pic.twitter.com/sexiQJHAcp
— Michael Li 李之樸 (@mcpli) January 17, 2026
