The California Supreme Court will not prevent Democrats from moving forward Thursday with a plan to redraw congressional districts.

Republicans in the Golden State had asked the state’s high court to step in and temporarily block the redistricting efforts, arguing that Democrats — who are racing to put the plan on the ballot later this year — had skirted a rule requiring state lawmakers to wait at least 30 days before passing newly introduced legislation.

But in a ruling late Wednesday, the court declined to act, writing that the Republican state lawmakers who filed the suit had “failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time.”

  • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Can someone explain to me how this matters? Do republicans really think they will take California? Many of the reds there already moved to Texas.

    • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      20 hours ago

      It means fewer Republican representatives from California in Congress. They’re doing it to match the number of Democratic seats Texas is going to gerrymander out of their state.

      • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        19 hours ago

        But congress doesn’t actually do anything anymore. King Trump holds all the power and as it stands now, congress is mostly ceremonial.

        • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Because the Democrats are the minority. If they pick up 3 or 4 seats in the midterms, they can actually do something about it

        • Azal@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Congress doesn’t do anything right now because the Republicans have so little of a majority they can’t afford to lose votes.

          If they go full majority it further legitimizes Trump’s agenda when laws are written specifically for him.

          • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            The only thing that solves fascism is incredible violence. There’s just no way to get enough people to act yet. It will happen when people run out of reasons to comply with laws that only apply to them, but theres going to be a lot of suffering and misery inflicted on us all before enough people say fuck it and grab a brick.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              The only thing that solves fascism is incredible violence.

              That’s not exactly true.

              • The deposition of the Greek junta in 1974 resulted in the deaths of 24 protestors (estimated) at the hands of a fascist tank, but no large-scale violence broke out. Infighting within the junta and the junta’s invasion of Cyprus caused far more death than the revolution did.

              • The Carnation Revolution in Portugal that same year only resulted in 4-6 deaths, total, all caused by the reaction of the regime being overthrown; no one was killed by the revolutionaries.

              • In Spain, just a year later, Francisco Franco died of natural causes; and while I wouldn’t call what happened over the next few years “peaceful,” it wasn’t quite two years from the death of Franco to the new government’s first successful election, and that time wasn’t marked by anything I would call “incredible violence.”

              • Uruguay transitioned from a dictatorship to a democracy in the mid-1980s. It was a little over a year between the first General Strike and the inauguration of the first democratically-elected president of the new government (though some elements of democracy had been filtering back into the government for the previous few years). No one was killed by the anti-fascists.

              • Pinochet’s incredibly violent rule in Chile ended with an election and a peaceful (albeit extended) transfer of power between 1988-1990.

              Today, all of these countries have a score of 85 or higher on the Freedom House index.

              There are other similar examples: Argentina in 1982, the Philippines and the People Power Revolution in 1986, South Africa defeating apartheid in 1994, even South Korea last December. Not all of those are great examples, whether because they didn’t stand the test of time or because they weren’t “quite as bad” to start off with, but it certainly seems that in the modern era, defeating fascism can be done nonviolently.

              Will it be done nonviolently in the US? I don’t know. All I know is, every fascist regime in history has either fallen or is in the process of falling. It’s just a matter of time, and how many people die along the way.

              theres going to be a lot of suffering and misery inflicted on us all

              Definitely true. One way or the other, this isn’t going to be a fun time.