2025 & 2026 Elections | Blue Wave 2025 results

[lawtig02]

It's how the bill was originally written and presented. As the article says, lawmakers removed the wording.

In other words, it was all a lie.

I don't think you read the article you posted. Because if you did, you would realize there's nothing in it that suggests the way the bill was presented to California voters was a lie.

 

[finesse]

It's how the bill was originally written and presented. As the article says, lawmakers removed the wording.

In other words, it was all a lie.

Or it went through the same negotiations and changes that are inherent in passing any bill in any form of legislature. Remember what Forrest's mother said. Complaining about lies by politicians is farcical from the get go and for a supporter of the party currently in power to do it is pie in the face ludicrous.

 

[ZenMode]

Texas went ahead with their redistricting. They didn’t back off, they were put in a holding pattern until SCOTUS weighs in. Most figure SCOTUS will side with Texas.

So was Newsom supposed to back off because of what will amount to be a temporary judicial ruling against Texas?

Yes, otherwise Ca is no better than TX. If it's wrong to redistrict, on an off year, to gerrymander your state, then it's wrong to redistrict, on an off year, to gerrymander your state.

 

[finesse]

Yes, otherwise Ca is no better than TX. If it's wrong to redistrict, on an off year, to gerrymander your state, then it's wrong to redistrict, on an off year, to gerrymander your state.

Well, I don't like gerrymandering . I think it's bad for the country. It can't be wrong, though, when the party in power depends so heavily upon it. I don't remember your campaign in favor of nonpartisan redistricting.

Is this some new kind of situational ethics? I can sometimes understand that but generally require a more powerful driver to appreciate the need than a party label.

 

[mpaer]

Of all the things this SCOTUS has done- ignoring Gerrymandering is right up there in terms of destroying Democracy. Our own NC is a great example-State level and Us Reps level. We are clearly a 50-50 State , and drawing the lines of districts that share values/ culture/economics is something a 6th grader could do...And it would be about 50-50
Instead we are about 75-25 Pubes
As a result every policy, tax, Education growth plan etc is geared towards Sampson County=not the three Metro ares where 60% of the folks live and 90% of the economic engine exists

 

[Calheel]

Especially when Newsom lied about it.

Prop 50 redistricting was supposed to happen only if Texas did their redistricting.

It was all a lie.

What happens to California's redistricting after Texas' congressional maps were struck down in court?

The court ruling came after California voters formally approved a ballot measure that was introduced to counteract Texas' redistricting.

www.cbsnews.com

Texas is redistricting. Do you really think the Supreme Court will let the injunction stand?

 

[ZenMode]

Texas is redistricting. Do you really think the Supreme Court will let the injunction stand?

If they do let the injunction stand, California shouldn't redistrict, right?

 

[Calheel]

If they do let the injunction stand, California shouldn't redistrict, right?

1. If monkeys fly out of my butt…
2. It would require a second proposition and there would not be enough time for campaigns. Any change would need to be for 2028 at this point.
3.Is North Carolina going to change its map? Will Indiana redistricting efforts end? Florida? Others? Texas isn’t the only one playing the game.

 

[ZenMode]

1. If monkeys fly out of my butt…
2. It would require a second proposition and there would not be enough time for campaigns. Any change would need to be for 2028 at this point.
3.Is North Carolina going to change its map? Will Indiana redistricting efforts end? Florida? Others? Texas isn’t the only one playing the game.

If it requires a second prop, it's because lawmakers removed wording, the voters were lied to and CA is required, by their own doing, to gerrymander.

 

[Calheel]

If it requires a second prop, it's because lawmakers removed wording, the voters were lied to and CA is required, by their own doing, to gerrymander.

The proposition comes with a pamphlet that describes what you are voting on, including the pros and cons, and language of the proposition.

Also, the commercials I saw (ad nauseum) said this was a “temporary” adjustment and California would revert back to the commission in 2030.

If you are suggesting that political ads may not be 100% accurate or honest, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

 

[superrific]

As usual Zen is lying. There was never any language in the amendment put to California voters about conditionality, so there was nothing to take out. Newsom said he would give Trump/Texas until August 11 to stop their own gerrymander, or else California would go forward. On August 13, Newsom wrote the following:

""DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!),"

So as of August 13, there was no conditionality about the California effort.

There never could have been. Proposition 50 was an amendment to the state constitution. Imagine writing into a constitution, "the state shall use these maps for elections, unless Texas does something in which case we will use these other maps." States don't pass laws that are conditional on what other states do. They especially don't write laws conditional on the outcome of judicial proceedings involving other states' laws.

 

[superrific]

The proposition comes with a pamphlet that describes what you are voting on, including the pros and cons, and language of the proposition.

Also, the commercials I saw (ad nauseum) said this was a “temporary” adjustment and California would revert back to the commission in 2030.

If you are suggesting that political ads may not be 100% accurate or honest, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

But there was no inaccuracy at all. Nobody ever promised voters what Zen claims. What happened was that Newsom initially proposed the legislation, and offered to take it back if Texas reconsidered. Since Texas did not reconsider, the legislation went forward. As of August 13, there was no indication from the governor that there was any conditionality.

As you say, the pamphlets contain the precise language and accurate descriptions on what is being voted. At no point was there any suggestion as to conditionality.

Nor were there advertisements that promised conditionality. That Texas redistricted was presented as a reason to vote for Prop 50. At no point ever did anyone claim -- not that I've seen or search engines have found -- that the redistricting itself was conditional on what Texas did. And for good reason.

Don't give Zen credit he has not earned. He is just lying, as usual.

 

[ZenMode]

The proposition comes with a pamphlet that describes what you are voting on, including the pros and cons, and language of the proposition.

Also, the commercials I saw (ad nauseum) said this was a “temporary” adjustment and California would revert back to the commission in 2030.

If you are suggesting that political ads may not be 100% accurate or honest, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

The prop was originally written so that the redistricting only happened if Texas went through with redistricting. The wording was changed so that the redistricting happened regardless of what happened in Texas.

 

[aGDevil2k]

How many clown reactions can you rack up?

 

[ZenMode]

As usual Zen is lying. There was never any language in the amendment put to California voters about conditionality, so there was nothing to take out. Newsom said he would give Trump/Texas until August 11 to stop their own gerrymander, or else California would go forward. On August 13, Newsom wrote the following:

""DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!),"

So as of August 13, there was no conditionality about the California effort.

There never could have been. Proposition 50 was an amendment to the state constitution. Imagine writing into a constitution, "the state shall use these maps for elections, unless Texas does something in which case we will use these other maps." States don't pass laws that are conditional on what other states do. They especially don't write laws conditional on the outcome of judicial proceedings involving other states' laws.

California lawmakers removed trigger clause​

When California state lawmakers initially introduced their redistricting legislation, it included a trigger clause under which California would only redraw its congressional map in response to a similar move by a Republican state.

Under that trigger language, California's redistricting map would "become operative only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map that takes effect after Aug. 1, 2025, and before Jan. 1, 2031, and such redistricting is not required by a federal court order."

However, the trigger clause was removed just before California lawmakers voted on the redistricting bills. Without that trigger language, as it stands now, the Texas ruling does not impact California's redrawn map.

During an August press conference, Newsom was asked if California would move forward with Proposition 50 even if a court were to strike down Texas' maps.

What happens to California's redistricting after Texas' congressional maps were struck down in court?

The court ruling came after California voters formally approved a ballot measure that was introduced to counteract Texas' redistricting.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Bigs23]

But there was no inaccuracy at all. Nobody ever promised voters what Zen claims. What happened was that Newsom initially proposed the legislation, and offered to take it back if Texas reconsidered. Since Texas did not reconsider, the legislation went forward. As of August 13, there was no indication from the governor that there was any conditionality.

As you say, the pamphlets contain the precise language and accurate descriptions on what is being voted. At no point was there any suggestion as to conditionality.

Nor were there advertisements that promised conditionality. That Texas redistricted was presented as a reason to vote for Prop 50. At no point ever did anyone claim -- not that I've seen or search engines have found -- that the redistricting itself was conditional on what Texas did. And for good reason.

Don't give Zen credit he has not earned. He is just lying, as usual.

So Zen is 100% wrong again?

 

[superrific]

"However, the trigger clause was removed just before California lawmakers voted on the redistricting bills. "

In other words, at no point was any trigger clause voted on by the legislature or the citizens. The language was removed while the language was in draft form. That is common.

 

[superrific]

So Zen is 100% wrong again?

Yes, unless it's possible to be more wrong than that, in which case he is. Whatever the maximum amount of wrongness is, that's where he is.

 

[Calheel]

The prop was originally written so that the redistricting only happened if Texas went through with redistricting. The wording was changed so that the redistricting happened regardless of what happened in Texas.

Nobody votes -- or even knows -- the draft language of a proposition. In California, the wording of a proposition cannot change once it is certified for the ballot.

In this particular case, there was a trigger clause in the initial draft of the proposition for a few days in the Summer, which was subsequently removed because it was clear that Texas would pass its law by then (moreover, even under the draft trigger clause, the California plan would have still remained in effect).

In any event, that language was removed more than four months before the proposition was voted on. This was not a switcheroo at the last minute. The ads for Prop 50 didn't start running until September.

 

[ZenMode]

Nobody votes -- or even knows -- the draft language of a proposition. In California, the wording of a proposition cannot change once it is certified for the ballot.

In this particular case, there was a trigger clause in the initial draft of the proposition for a few days in the Summer, which was subsequently removed because it was clear that Texas would pass its law by then (moreover, even under the draft trigger clause, the California plan would have still remained in effect).

In any event, that language was removed more than four months before the proposition was voted on. This was not a switcheroo at the last minute. The ads for Prop 50 didn't start running until September.

Again, the bill was presented as a reaction to what Texas is doing. If Texas doesn't redistrict, what is CA reacting to? Why should they redistrict?