Lightning-fast party re-division reflects the new United States

In a social media post one night about a partisan war that could reshape generations of American political power, President Trump sounded enthusiastic.

“The great state of Texas! Everything is gone, everything is gone, on our way to the five congressional seats in Congress and saved your rights, freedoms, your country, your country itself,” Trump wrote.

Trump wrote: “Texas will never let us down. Florida, Indiana and others want to do the same.

The next day, Gov. Gavin Newsom put the new swagger as Trump’s chief rival on the issue, stood with lawmakers from the most populous blue state in the United States, announcing his legislative success to provide voters with a Redrawn Congressional Map for California, a Democratic Party that is extremely loved by California.

“We got here because the U.S. president is one of the most unpopular presidents in American history,” Newsom said, California’s efforts were defensive rather than offensive. “We arrived here because he realized he was going to lose the election, [and that] Congress will return to the Democrats in November next year. ”

Last week, with the speed of lightning, the most important political leader in the United States abandoned any pretense of political fairness—an idea of ​​voter equality or elected representation reflecting its voters favors a full-scale partisan war, something politician and many political observers, many political observers involved in the future of American democracy.

“If people don’t stand up, the United States will be heading towards real authoritarian rule,” Democrat Gene Wu, a Houston-area, said on a phone call with reporters Friday.

The re-divided game began with Trump, whose approval ratings plummeted, forcing Quasius to manipulate maps to ensure more housing seats are secured for Republicans, so he won’t face a hostile House majority in the second half of the second semester. It escalated when Newsom and other California leaders said they wouldn’t be idle and began working to put their new map on the November ballot — formally asking voters to abandon the state’s independent redivision committee to resist Trump’s gambit in Texas.

These two states alone have homes to about 70 million Americans, but the battle there is little restriction. As Trump suggests, other states are also focusing on whether to re-set boundaries—the prospect of splitting a country between the blue and red centers of power more than ever, while the voices of millions of party voters are almost wiped out in the congressional halls.

Gerrymandering is nothing new, of course, and already exists in many states across the country. But the latest redistribution of race bold, unapologetic and bipartisan bending are new and different things, experts say. It is a clear product of Trump’s new America, where political wars are increasingly unaffected and there are no long-standing political norms, and leaders of both parties seem increasingly willing to abandon pretending and politeness in pursuit of power.

Trump promised a new “golden age” on the campaign trail, and he long said his goal is to return the United States to some of the alleged, more aspiring and proud past. But he also repeatedly sent signals with little ambiguity, with the aim of manipulating the political system to further empower himself and his Republicans, whether through reallocation, ending mail-in ballots or other measures designed to reduce voting by voters.

“For four years, you don’t have to vote again,” Trump told a group of evangelical Christians in his presidential campaign. “We’ve fixed it well, you don’t have to vote.”

“No democracy”

Given its potential impact on reshaping Congress and further inciting Trump’s potential impact during the second term.

Sam Wang, president of Princeton’s Election Innovation Lab, has been studying Gerrymandering for years, but said on a media call with WU that he had never received inquiries than in the past few weeks when his inbox was already full of questions from media outlets around the world.

Gerrymandering reached its highs more than a decade ago, but due to the court’s combat and the state legislature, an independent commission was established to delineate the regional lines.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott defended his state’s re-division move, while calling California a “joking”.

(Eric Guy/AP)

Now, however, efforts in Texas and California are threatening to progress and push things “to new lows,” he said—some voters feel deprived of their rights, and Wang is concerned about further erosion of voter protection under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, saying the Conservative Supreme Court could weaken the Conservative Supreme Court.

Wu said allowing politicians to relist congressional boundaries when they want to “make sure they never lose” is a dangerous precedent that will particularly deprive minority voters of rights – because “politicians and leaders will no longer listen to people.”

“There will be no democracy left,” he said.

That said, Wu made a sharp distinction between the unilateral redrawn maps of Texas Republicans – partly through “hacking” minorities – California requires voters to offset that power with their new maps.

“California is defending the country,” he said. “Texas is doing something illegal.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott acted as an opposition Friday, saying the new map of Texas is constitutional and that California’s “joking” could be overturned. He also hinted further efforts to add more House seats to the party in other Republican-led states.

“Republicans are not done in the United States,” Abbott said.

The two legal experts on the call expressed serious concerns about such partisan production, especially in Texas.

Sara Rohani, an assistant attorney for the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), said her organization has struggled for decades to ensure that commitments to blacks and other minorities’ voting rights bills are not violated by unethical racist political leaders in search of power.

“Fair representatives are not optional in this country. It is the right of all Americans [have] Equal voting rights. ” she said.

That said, “Voters of color have been excluded from this promise, both before and after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and “in 2025, it is clear that our struggle for the fair map continues,” Rohani said.

She said that in recent years, major victories have been won in court in states such as Alabama and Louisiana, and these battles will only continue. When asked if her group was ready to sue the map of Texas, Rohani expressed opposition — but did not back down, saying the “Nature Party” would “get in any jurisdiction targeting black voters.”

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Foundation, said the map of Texas will certainly face challenges.

Thans said Texas lawmakers redefine their map in 2021 to maximize the Republican’s advantage in the congressional race – the only limitation is that it is a limitation imposed by the Voting Rights Act. That means, he said, in order to get more seats, “they have to violate the Voting Rights Act.”

Texas Republicans argue that they are partly responding to Justice Department warnings that their current map is illegal in 2021. But Sarns noted that the Justice Department filed lawsuits when Trump took office, challenging these maps—which means that the threat of filing another lawsuit is an empty strategy, “apparently orchestrated with one goal: Donald Trump’s goal.”

Is there any legal case?

Any legal challenge is unclear about the fate of the rezoning efforts, partly because challenges in court are increasingly difficult to challenge.

In 2019, the Supreme Court claimed that the highly partisan national election map was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John G.

It’s not a new sight for Roberts.

In 2006, shortly after he joined the court, the Justice rejected the challenge of a mid-term re-division designed by Republicans in Texas but ordered the state (rather than Roberts’ objection) to remake one of its majority Ratno Islands regions to transfer some of its voters to another slanted Latino area.

Roberts expressed frustration at the time and wrote: “It’s a dirty business that disperses us by race.”

Some legal experts say the new Texas re-division could face legal challenges if black or Latino lawmakers are at risk of losing their seats. But Supreme Court conservatives have expressed doubts about such claims and have given signs that they may narrow the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

In March, the judge considered Louisiana’s case to decide whether the state must create a second congressional district that will elect black candidates to comply with the Voting Rights Act and, if so, how should it be extracted.

But the court failed to make a decision. Instead, the court said on August 1 that further debate will be heard this fall, “the state intends to create a second majority-minority congressional district” violates the constitution.

Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued that no matter the voting rights bill, electoral districts based on racial boundaries are unconstitutional, and now he may have a majority consistent with him.

If so, such a ruling could evade discriminatory claims by black and Latin American lawmakers in Texas or elsewhere, further clearing the path of partisan Geelymander.

Looking to the future

Given the intensity of the battle and the uncertainty of related legal challenges, few of the highest political leaders in the United States think of the future. They are currently fighting – focusing on swinging public opinion.

Newsom said in a YouTube live video with thousands of supporters on Thursday that Trump “does not believe in the rule of law—he believes in the rule of Don; period, go all out”, and he hopes it is “increasingly more Americans are endangering the dangerous Americans.”

Newsom said when Trump “calls intent on dialing the election to Greg Abbott, Texas,” he hopes Democrats can only turn over and accept it. In response, Democrats had to stop thinking about “whether we should play hard balls” and began to focus on “how we can play hard balls.”

Newsom said Friday that he was “proud of the legislature’s rapid move” and believed that despite polls showing a slow start to the campaign, he believed voters would support ballot measures to change the state’s map.

A UC Berkeley Government Institute poll was conducted for the New York Times and found that 48% of voters said they would vote for the temporary Geely effort, although 20% have not been determined.

Asked if he encouraged Democratic leaders in other states to revisit their maps, Newsom said he praised Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, showing that they might be willing to do so.

“I do believe it [the California] The Legislature will inspire other legislative leaders … to meet at this moment to save this democracy and stop this dictatorship and continue to take practical actions to undermine our constitution and our democratic principles,” Newsom said.