Democrats are struggling to convince the public that they are outraged that there is gerrymandering afoot in Texas. It is no easy task, particularly after Texas Democrats selected Illinois as their sanctuary state, a state considered the most gerrymandered in the country. Trump received 45 percent of the vote in the state, but Republicans have only 14 percent of the congressional seats. Even the New York Times admitted that gerrymandering has favored Democrats across the nation. However, the winner of the Claude Rains award must be Marc Elias, who has expressed disgust over the notion of gerrymandering despite the fact that his group was denounced by courts for outrageous gerrymandering efforts.
The origin of the term was based on re-districting associated with Elbridge Gerry, a Founding Father, vice president, and governor of Massachusetts. He signed off on a district designed to guarantee a seat for the precursor of today’s Democratic Party. The district resembled a salamander, so the Boston Gazette deemed it the “Gerry-mander.”
That effort pales in comparison to what was done in Illinois to deny Republicans a fair share of congressional seats. This is the Illinois map:
The 13th congressional district stretches from East St. Louis to Springfield, 90 miles away. It then takes a sharp turn east to grab Decatur and Champaign. This monstrosity was approved by Democrats who are now insisting that they will respond to Texas with a gerrymander war, as if they were political pacifists until a few days ago.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker portrayed his party as the victim of conniving pols and pledged to respond in kind. Yet, it was Pritzker who approved the redistricting that guaranteed that, while Republicans represent almost half of the voters, they will receive less than twenty percent of the congressional seats.
The same is true in California, where Governor Gavin Newsom is also pledging to retaliate despite previously engaging in rampant gerrymandering. Republicans constituted roughly 40 percent of the congressional vote in 2024 but received only about 17 percent of the House seats. Across the country in 17 blue states, the Dems won 56.7 percent of the popular House vote but secured 143 of the 185 House seats — 77.7 percent.
New York has achieved that same expanded democratic representation despite the fact that Trump received 45 percent of the vote. Republicans are confined to a small handful of districts.
I have long opposed gerrymandering by both parties. However, the claims of disgust and outrage by Democrats border on the comical.
That brings us to Marc Elias, who is again trying to raise clients and donations off the outrage.
Elias has not only been sanctioned in past litigation, but past courts have also criticized his group. In Maryland, Elias filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found violated not only Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map pushed by Elias “subverts the will of those governed.”
Elias is currently looking at a likely demand for testimony in the new grand jury investigation into the Russian conspiracy. He featured prominently in the filings of Special Counsel John Durham. It was Elias who made the key funding available to Fusion GPS, which in turn enlisted Steele to produce his now discredited dossier on Trump and his campaign.
During the campaign, reporters did ask about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. Weeks after the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and categorically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
With the likes of Marc Elias leading the cause against gerrymandering, the Democrats have reached a level of hypocrisy that knows no equal.
For the public, this growing war should support a movement to put an end to gerrymandering by all parties. Politicians will then have to look to voters, not maps to maintain their power.
Newsom is spending 22 million on a ballot measure to remove the non partisan gerrymandering system from the state constitution, and use a politically predatory system to block out the influence of the growing distaste of how California is governed.
If not for the 60% of the population that is stoned 24/7, someone might object.
Good luck with that. Corruption always wins in California.
Talk about out of touch with reality!
The Governor of Massachusetts threatened to gerrymander.
As it stands, every one of Massachusetts’ House Representatives already are Democrat.
Kind of an empty threat as the job has already been done!
It’s probably not constitutional but the country is in need of an uniform objective method for defining congressional districts. I’m sure that mathematicians and statisticians using AI and computers can get the job done.
One could start with limitations on the ratio between the length of the district boundary and the enclosed area of the district and then follow with limits on the fractal dimension of the boundary. Fractal dimension is a concept from chaos theory. Consider an equilateral triangle with sides of 1 unit. The total circumference is 3. Then divide each side into 3 and erect another equilateral triangle on the centre segment. This add 2/3 and subtracts 1/3 from the length of each side adding a total of 1 to get the circumference of the new figure, a Star of David. In this step the circumference has been multiplied by 4/3. Repeat this process on each new boundary segment ad infinitum and each iteration increases the boundary of the new figure by 4/3 times the boundary of the previous one and tends towards the infinite. You end up with a boundary of infinite length enclosing a finite area.
Obviously there should also be limits on how many changes in district boundary direction are allowed.
While each iteration increases the area of the figure it does not tend to infinity as it can never exceed that of the circle enclosing the original equilateral triangle.
Of course a much better way would be to abolish districts and make the total state into one multi member electorate with preferential voting.
Does anyone remember the old Little Rascals/Our Gang episode where a few were absent/skipping school and hiding in a barn, and a truant officer came looking for them, calling out toward the barn, “Anyone in there?”
And Spanky or some other kid calls out, “No one in here but us chickens!”
So what is the big deal ?
Pretty much every rational person grasps that democrats accuse republicans of what they themselves are doing.
Regardless, this does NOT need the intervention of the legislature or courts.
Democrats have clearly heavily gerymandered democratic states.
Turn about is fair play. TX republicans are seeking to do to TX a mild version of what democrats in IL and MA and NY and CA and … have done already.
There is no objectively correct method of assigning congressional districts.
But there are ones that Voters will support and ones they will not.
Leave this up to voters.
Head em up and move em out! I believe Abbott is seeking to legally remove Jackoff Crockett in his recent filings based upon her inflammatory and violent rhetoric. I dont believe I have ever seen a more openly racist black in office, she is a detriment to the black community.
My error, it’s Wu he’s after for removal as being the ringleader for these losers. Goomy goo goo
In Massachusetts Trump got 38% of the vote and there isn’t ONE Republican member of congress.
I do not understand this math, even assuming that Trump votes and Republican votes are the same thing. Assume that the 38% Republican vote is uniform throughout the State. Then Republicans would lose every district 62% to 38%. Why does it seem to be gerrymandering when Republicans lose but perfectly acceptable when Republicans win?
“Assume that the 38% Republican vote is uniform throughout the State”
I question your BIG assumption there.
“Assume that the 38% Republican vote is uniform throughout the State.”
Assume that pigs can fly. Then they should be able to escape being turned into bacon.
“That effort pales in comparison to what was done in Illinois . . .” (JT)
What’s doubly humiliating is that the D’s keep getting caught with their pants down. And just don’t care.
I’m still trying to parse out the complaint that there can be no voting equality if the elected candidate doesn’t reflect the party and the race of the full voting population. The wacky rhetoric makes no sense.
Very recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that walkouts by legislators to deny a quorum were not constitutionally protected activity: “[w]alkouts by legislators to deny a quorum to conduct business in the legislature are exercises of legislative power not protected under the First Amendment …” (the legislators had appealed the consequential punishment/sanction.)
Linthicum v. Wagner
”https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/02/29/23-4292.pdf
In truth, we get off on the tangent of gerrymandering (deep history from both sides), when instead, should there be a focus on quorum requirements? REQUIRING proxy voting or conference call-in voting whenever there is an absence? A Rule stating that per quorum requirements, retaliatory abstention will be counted as neither a yay or nay vote, but entered as a vote of abstention, which will nonetheless contribute to minimum votes for quorum since it inherently constitutes a substantive and overt response to the measure at issue?
I dunno, no knowledge or experience in this area….
The requirement is for legislators to be physically present. Leaving the state is not a crime.
Please note my insertion of the word “retaliatory.” An easy evidentiary element, since its intent was publicly declared in advance.
I believe MANY legislatures allow proxy voting (I was a member of the city’s local planning and zoning Board, and we had such a requirement for proxy or conference/Zoom attendance.)
Also, your comment does not address the case law and Ninth Circuit ruling that I cited?
Thanks.
(and who said or even implied that it was a crime? Not me. Nor do I think Gov. Abbott did. If there were Any mention of crime, I thought it had to do with soliciting or accepting payments to cover fines?)
(I correct myself. Didn;t Abbott’s staff say it was not a crime, but a civil violation?)
gotta go, goodnight.
Lin – you make a good point that that should be the focus of discussion. The types of measures you suggest would be a really good fix. As for the person who said it wasn’t a crime, they may not be aware that the First Amendment covers more than protection against criminal punishment. It also covers protection from civil sanctions, which was your focus rather than criminal prosecution. Here, the civil sanction would be what Abbot is proposing (losing office), and in your example there wouldn’t even be a civil sanction, since counting the person’s retaliatory absence is entered as a vote of abstention is not a sanction at all.
I do not think it is a violation of the first amendment to sanction elected officials fleeing the state to avoid a vote.
Any such law would be content neutral – how you vote is not relevant – even that you vote is not relevant,
just being physically present.
Further being a legislators is not a right.
Employers sanction employees for speech all the time.
There are more requirements to sanction those in government for expressive actions, but not so many that content neutral laws can not be developed.
I do not know about the TX constitution – but the US constitution provides that each house establish its own rules for seating and removing members.
As mentioned elsewhere – George Santos was removed – which begs the question of why Maxine Waters AOC and Pelosi as well as many others who have committed similar violations of the law to those of Santos, and are still seated.
Regardless, political questions are best left to legislators, and if we do not like their actions to the voters.
Sorry Lin,
The issue here is should this be fixed – and if so by whom and how.
The courts should stay out of it – especially when they are trying to evaluate “intent”.
I am not trying to defend these legislators, just argue that the courts are not the way to resolve this.
Voters should vote them out of office.
If we are going to deal with how we “should” change the law.
No proxy voting at all – you must be physically present to vote.
Further I do not think our representatives should get paid AT ALL.
If a legislator is absent for votes frequently enough – there should be a special election to replace them.
But those are MY preferences. In reality – voters decide.
If they do not like what their legislators are doing – vote them out.
who’s talking about courts? Article I Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution provides plenty of ammo for each House of Congress to discipline members for attendance-related issues:
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.”
Abbot has petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to remove Wu from office:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/greg-abbott-lawsuit-house-democratic-caucus-chair-gene-wu-redistrictin-rcna223286
NotSoOld:
I was just looking for you, and wanted to address this to you for your thoughts, but after scanning, did not see any recent posting by you; and then you apparently posted at 10:02 while I was writing! see my comment. nite nite.
Trump wants to send the FBI to round up the wayward Texas legislators. Good luck with that.
Senator Cornyn is making that request.
Just a small detail that she got wrong 😂
As they always do!
If that’s the case then Texas can always place a bounty over the wayward democrats’ heads. I’m sure there will be aplenty who will take up the offer. 😊
Governor Abbott said, “ Representative Wu and the other Texas House Democrats have shown a willful refusal to return, and their absence for an indefinite period of time deprives the House of the quorum needed to meet and conduct business on behalf of Texans,”..
He’s suing Wu? Texas is gathering to conduct the business of Trump. Not Texans. Even Texans have been voicing their opposition to the redistricting Trump wants.
“Even Texans have been voicing their opposition to the redistricting Trump wants.”
Leftist currently residing in Texas don’t count for much sweetcakes.
TX legislators were elected by Texans – not Trump.
The majority are republicans.
There is no correct way to create congressional districts.
This is something that the courts should stay out of – redistricting, it is a political question, not a constitutional or legal one. If you do not like how your legislators redistricted – elect new legislators.
As others have noted – TX is just seeking to do what a plethora of blue atates have already done.
If Texans do not like that – elect different legislators.
“Even Texans have been voicing their opposition to the redistricting Trump wants.”
The majority of Texans elected the people doing this. If you are correct and a majority oppose it, then not only will TX republicans loose some US house seats, but they will lose the TX legislature.
Which outcome do you wish to bet on ?
The courts get to step in when actual rights are being violated – no rights are being violated here.
Wrong.
DOJ civil rights chief says Texas redistricting drama prompted by legal warning, not gerrymandering
“We took a look at Texas, and we found that four of their districts in Texas are comprised of these so-called coalition districts,” Dhillon said Tuesday on the “Just the News, No Noise” TV show. “In other words, to get to a special minority district, you have to add together multiple minorities or count on a certain percentage of a crossover white vote. And this is too complex, too weird and too inconsistent with equal protection.
“So we wrote to Texas, telling them that even though that law had been struck down a couple of years ago, their districts were now not in compliance with the Federal Voting Rights laws, and so they needed to take action to fix them,” she added. “That is what triggered the Texas Legislature and the Texas governor to call the legislature into session to put new maps together.”
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/harmeet-dhillon-says-texas-redistricting-fight-began-after-prompting
Olde “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did all the “Gerrymandering” that was necessary to kill American constitutional freedom.
Thanks, Abe!
*. PT, the dems are lawless, they’re child-like minds can’t follow laws. It’s completely dysfunctional.
If you’ll excuse me this– old people, ill people, handicapped, poor people can’t run from this place Obama created. It reminds me of the cares of Jesus Christ.
What other states are thinking of redistricting for 2026? Here’s one person who says there are several, including:
Texas: 5 seats
Florida: 3-5 seats
Ohio: 2 seats
Indiana: 1-2 seats
Missouri: 1 seat
California – Dems gain 5 seats
https://x.com/OpenSourceZone/status/1952712587818254812
If isolationism is the way to go, then
should there have ever been a Monroe Doctrine?
If people deserve to be made miserable, then it makes perfect sense to give them
the form of government that will make them the most miserable.
Thank you for this enlightening opinion. One can only hope that this broken system gets fixed, but I won’t hold my beath.
The only thing missing is a picture of the “salamander” that started the whole thing. My guess is that if Illinois, New York, California, Washington state, and Maryland were less gerrymandered, the Republicans would have a current majority in the House of Representatives of about 20. Probably the most gerrymandered district in Texas favors Democrats by taking in Democrat San Antonio and then runs north in a thin band along I-35 to take in deep blue Austin.