Let's talk about California, SCOTUS, and a question about the ruling.... Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about California, SCOTUS, and a question.

First, the news. The Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Republicans to block California's new voter-approved congressional map. The map was pushed forward after Texas engaged in a mid-decade redistricting that was an attempt at a partisan gerrymander. California responded by engaging in a partisan gerrymander of their own. Republicans tried to block it and the Supreme Court rejected the attempt. The court didn't explain their reasoning, which is pretty normal and there were no noted dissents. The map puts five Republican leaning districts in play during the midterms.

Now for the both mildly humorous part and the very telling part. The Republicans argued that the state's “professed purpose was to pick up five seats in Congress for the Democratic party to offset the five seats the Republican party gained in Texas.” But those officials harbored another purpose as well. Maximizing Latino voting strength to shore up Latino support for the Democratic Party.

The court was pretty certain to rule against this. First, because states run their own elections, as we've talked about before, and second, because the courts don't generally get involved in partisan gerrymanders. So, starting off by pointing out the goal was to get the Democratic party more seats probably wasn't the best phrasing.

But beyond that, the basis of a lot of recent Republican gerrymandering was the idea that they were doing well with Latinos. This statement seemed to show at least some Republicans understood they weren't keeping those gains with that demographic.

Okay, onto the question. Belle, why on earth did the Supreme Court side with Democrats? I'm happy, but I feel like there's another shoe to drop here. What am I missing?

Okay, look, I've been pretty open about my criticisms of SCOTUS, but there's probably an expectation on the Democratic side of the aisle that they're completely lawless. Believe me, I get it. But the court's recent rulings are pretty consistent with themselves. They just aren't always consistent with the will of the American people or previous court rulings.

The conservative side of the Supreme Court kind of said this was what they were going to do weeks ago when they ruled on the Texas case. Justice Alito actually brought up California when he wrote a concurrence. He wrote that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map like the map subsequently adopted in California was partisan advantage pure and simple.” That's a pretty clear signal weeks ago to the Republican party that the attempt to block the California map was doomed to fail.

Basically, the court seems willing to rewrite rules for the Republican party, but once rewritten, they're going to be applied across the board. This is also another clear reminder that no matter how much Republicans in the White House or Congress stomp their feet about federalizing elections, the states run their elections and the federal role is secondary.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.