Justin Levitt

Amen.

This is an incredibly twisted reboot of “Chicago”

In 2016, I wrote about this challenge -- defaulting on the duty to serve as a legislator in order to preserve the duty to uphold the Constitution -- in connection with the last time Texas re-regerrymandered, in 2003.

It's a wild story.

But since 2016, SCOTUS has made things in some ways clearer.

For the TX legislators who fled the state, they may be using one of the very few tools now available to prevent Texas from unconstitutionally using state power to effectuate an excessive partisan gerrymander.

That is, they're trying to keep their oath, with the only meaningful tool available.

SCOTUS said in 2019 that excessive partisan gerrymandering was "inconsistent with democratic principles." Unconstitutional. 9-0.

And in the same breath, they refused to let federal courts enforce this constitutional mandate.

redistricting.lls.edu/wp-content/u...

Texas House Democrats flee the state in bid to block GOP’s proposed congressional map The lawmakers’ absence means the lower chamber won’t have enough members present to function, stalling passage of a draft map Democrats have condemned as a political power grab.

TX legislators are now apparently OOO.

Each swore that he or she "will faithfully execute the duties of the office of [legislator] of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State."

(1/3)

📌

I’m sorry, did you say 2024?

the voting rights act is, in its entirety, obviously constitutional under the 15th amendment, which gives congress broad and proactive authority to stop racial discrimination in voting. and you know it is obviously constitutional because roberts has had to invent entire new doctrines to gut it.

The only reason that what Texas is doing is possible is that the Court - this Court - in 2019 forced federal courts OUT of the picture.

Before that, right around 2017ish, lower federal courts were doing a not-awful job policing the worst partisan thrashing.

“Concern”

Correct.

I'm actually a little surprised they didn't wait a week to slide the shiv in. August 6 would have been the most sinister date to issue this order.

www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

JFC. There it is.

SCOTUS is asking if it should be illegal for government to _try to stop the impact of discrimination_, unless that work is buried under the label of screwing partisan enemies.

Because the natural instinct is to look at what's going on in Texas and say, "yes, more, please."

Nope. Illinois is egregious, but my point is that even while complying with the VRA, it’s not actually maxed out.

Neither federal law nor state law requires that federal districts be contiguous.

Would the districts be absurd? Yes. Would they be illegal? No.

Absolutely right. And my point is we’re not yet back in the truly Wild West. heading there, but not there yet.

Or, if you prefer, Joshua has gained control of WOPR and has started the initiation sequence but the rockets haven’t yet launched.

Maybe national Rs should play more tic tac toe.

Or, put differently, did you just move a significant number of people into or or out of districts based solely on race to hit an artificial uninformed target?

It’s worse than it’s been in a very long time. And there are some sectors that have become effectively lawless.

But my point is that it can still get measurably worse still (and also worse for Rs). And that there’s still a chance to swerve before the car is all the way off the cliff.

Not a thing. CA and IL changes can all be contingent, to go into effect only if TX goes through with touching the stove.

None of this is good for democracy, just like nobody wins a nuclear war.

Which is why you don’t launch first.

I honestly don’t think the national Rs pushing Texas understand how much fire they’re playing with.

If they tick off IL enough, and CA voters enough to change CA law, that’s every single member of the Republican delegation gone. All twelve.

If there are no rules, there are no rules.

That’s more bad punctuation.

Should be:

1 space? Please.

Automatically adds two spaces aver the period. Obvs.

TL/DR: Rick's take is right. I just added more reasons.

SCOTUS has now essentially made it possible for any level of gerrymandering to be _plausible_.

But what they _said_ was that extreme gerrymanders were inconsistent w/ democracy.

Shoplifting is still illegal even when you know there’s no cop watching. And legislators take oaths.

tweet from chuck grassley today Chuck Grassley @ChuckGrassley 2day is natl whistleblower day Too often whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic they r patriotic ppl trying to keep GOVT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PPL

You gotta be fucking kidding me man

Wherein the leader of the Department of Justice announces that she has filed a “misconduct complaint” against Judge Boasberg.

* wheeze *

* wheeze *

oh, man i can’t

* wheeze *

The CIA’s predecessor covered the basics in 1944.

And the tools are more than available to anyone who’s ever been involved in a group project.

(Though as described, academics with faculty meeting experience have to be MVPs here. Got any of those, Harvard?)

www.cia.gov/static/5c875...

if you think as I do that a major limiting factor on this form of extortion is administrative capacity, burning their time on bullshit is a moral responsibility for whoever is under the gun.

I'd also love to hear from those who know whether a nonprofit's participation in a criminal enterprise creates any potential liability from the nonprofit back to the nonprofit's donors.

No particular reason.