39
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
11461 readers
66 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I think what actually happened is that Republicans figured that 1) Democrat legislatures would either be too scared to try this unilaterally like Republicans did, or otherwise get overturned by a hostile SCOTUS, or 2) not have enough time before the midterms to make these changes. They definitely didn't count on multiple states putting up ballot initiatives successfully. SCOTUS could still try some shenanigans, but it would be nearly impossible to justify federally blocking state-level ballot initiatives around administering elections (and Trump has already started pushing federal control, since the midterms clearly aren't setting up to go the way they want).
My real fear is that this entire exercise has been a distraction, and they're planning something else to overcome the midterms.
I'm of the same mind. The fix is in. It's really a question of if they are smart enough to execute and have the assistance they assume.
Your final thought has occurred to me as well. And, sorry to say, I don't think we're special here.
I think it's worth noting that both California and Virginia sought temporary exemptions from nonpartisan redistricting boards and went to the voters. Nazi states did it legislatively and don't intend to give up absurd maps just because 2030 rolls around.
This was all a pointless exercise. Like, I'm glad Dems fought back, but how much taxpayer money did we spend to arrive at the status quo? I've love to see a Constitutional amendment stating that states shall appoint nonpartisan boards to determine congressional districts. We'll see that before term limits for Congress, but neither is ever going to sail through with two-thirds in both houses and then 35 states ratifying it.
We don't have lawmakers anymore. Just corporate interests.
A constitutional amendment would be ideal, but it's critical we never allow a full Constitutional Convention (ConCon) to happen, because those have lower ratification requirements than the regular amendment process and any amendment can be introduced regardless of what they originally set out to pass, and I'd be worried that corpo Dems like Schumer would get tricked into going along with one in the name of a "bipartisan win", and we'd be well and truly cooked.
Unfortunately, we're not quite back to the status quo. The fact that Dems went a different route means that the DOJ could sue the Blue states claiming that ballot initiative changes aren't valid but legislature-passed ones are, and then tie everything up through the midterms with SCOTUS's help. Ideally we'd have 3-4 Blue states also do legislature-passed laws that directly mirror Texas'.
Also, I think a Constitutional Convention would likely end up dissolving the U.S. It wouldn't really be secession, just "nah, y'all do your thing, but this isn't what we want, and Nazi states should learn to be self-sufficient instead of relying on us to subsidize your bullshit."
You end up with greater Canada on both coasts and around the Great Lakes, and the rest can believe Jesus is about hate and women should have no rights. Good luck with your economy without California and New York.
sigh A man can dream.
I mean, they could try to make that differentiation, but in both cases, the Legislature still has to pass the final bill again, unless I'm mistaken. I know that's the case in the Commonwealth; California, I can't say for certain.
At any rate, the rest of the world is laughing at us that instead of focusing on a pointless war, we're focused on changing election rules. If this were any other country, we'd be mocking them, but American exceptionalism strikes again.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.