@gramroyalswiftie.bsky.social
We MUST succeed.
November 20, 2025 at 1:38 AM
We MUST succeed.
He is a disgusting pig.
November 18, 2025 at 8:22 PM
He is a disgusting pig.
Trump is without morals of any kind. Ruthless and corrupt.
November 18, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Trump is without morals of any kind. Ruthless and corrupt.
Reposted
To answer the the most common questions:
• The case was heard under a provision of law used in many redistricting cases, where a three-judge district court (incl. one appeals court judge) hears it, then any appeal goes directly to SCOTUS
• No, this would not directly affect California’s changes:
• The case was heard under a provision of law used in many redistricting cases, where a three-judge district court (incl. one appeals court judge) hears it, then any appeal goes directly to SCOTUS
• No, this would not directly affect California’s changes:
The TX ruling would *not* invalidate CA's new districts. The amendment passed by Prop 50 mentions Texas, but there's no trigger provision. It's just an explanatory reference. ballotpedia.org/California_P...
![SEC. 4. (a) It is the policy of the State of California to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. The people of the State of California call on the Congress of the United States to pass federal legislation and propose an amendment of the United States Constitution to require the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.
(b) In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law, the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21400) of Division 21 of the Elections Code shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d).
(c) (1) The Attorney General has the sole legal standing to defend any action regarding a congressional district map adopted pursuant to subdivision (b).
(2) The California Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in all proceedings in which a congressional district map adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) is challenged.
(d) The Citizens Redistricting Commission established pursuant to Section 1 shall continue to adjust the boundary lines of the congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts in conformance with the standards and process set forth in Section 2 in 2031, and every 10 years thereafter as provided in Section 1.[43]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:alqdxbp33ceoyly2o46nvcrc/bafkreihk67th23ahmgsomceqzbbmje3kdxqsbcsoirgbsn33bzlqpcdfgq@jpeg)
November 18, 2025 at 7:08 PM
To answer the the most common questions:
• The case was heard under a provision of law used in many redistricting cases, where a three-judge district court (incl. one appeals court judge) hears it, then any appeal goes directly to SCOTUS
• No, this would not directly affect California’s changes:
• The case was heard under a provision of law used in many redistricting cases, where a three-judge district court (incl. one appeals court judge) hears it, then any appeal goes directly to SCOTUS
• No, this would not directly affect California’s changes: