Quote:

---

Poking around online DeSantis called for the special session in January & redistricting and a couple of other items were the reason for the special session

---

Yeah, another reason not to drag suspect X links into these sorts of discussions. People often naively treat them as gospel which is bad for discussion. Any post that says "Boom" probably should be ignored out of the gates.

I am personally curious what is taking DeSantis so long. From the stuff I have read, most current Florida reps are nervous about unintended consequences as it is tricky in South Florida to serve up reliable shifts.

I learned the term "Dummy-mander", which is to accidentally endanger current reliable seats by adding new ones elsewhere. There seems to be real concern over that in Florida.

I also learned that a lot of GOP folk in Florida have a pretty bad relationship with DeSantis, with scars from his failed Presidential bid still straining relationships with the pro-Trump MAGA crowd in the State legislature.

swc93 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

I love how the leftists here keep repeating the "Texas started it" trope fed to them by their BS media sources, despite it being repeatedly debunked here. Notice how they're not offering any rebuttal to that? Because they can't.

---

When they reach for the "Well, this board [insert criticism here]...." card, you know they have nothing of substance to argue the point and just want to deflect. It's like clockwork.

---

MuSt pRotEct ThE EcHo chAmBer

---

As I said...like clockwork.

And to put to rest the whole "Texas didn't make the voters vote to redistrict" tripe...

Texas' constitution gives the state legislature the direct authority over redistricting.

Virginia's constitution in 2020 was amended to transfer redistricting power from the legislature to a "bipartisan commission". To be able to redistrict NOW instead of going through the commission, they had to pass a new constitutional amendment to set aside the commission's authority. And under VA law, all constitutional amendments must be approved by voters.

Jack Boyette said:

---

I love how the leftists here keep repeating the "Texas started it" trope fed to them by their BS media sources

---

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Texas has had representation stolen from us. What Virginia did is nothing like what Texas did.

---

Maybe, but had what happened in Texas not happened, especially the way it did, who knows if what's happened in every dem state since would've happened at all.

---

So it's OK that actual Americans are denied representation? Texas should just take it, like we have had to feed, educate, and provide healthcare for illegals?

---

No, Texas shouldn't.

Abbott should have done something years earlier if the reasoning for doing it when he did wasn't because Trump told him it needed to be done, but because it was done back in 2022 and in 2020. That would be on Abbott for missing what seems to be obvious.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Texas has had representation stolen from us. What Virginia did is nothing like what Texas did.

---

Maybe, but had what happened in Texas not happened, especially the way it did, who knows if what's happened in every dem state since would've happened at all.

---

So it's OK that actual Americans are denied representation? Texas should just take it, like we have had to feed, educate, and provide healthcare for illegals?

---

No, Texas shouldn't.

Abbott should have done something years earlier if the reasoning for doing it when he did wasn't because Trump told him it needed to be done, but because it was done back in 2022 and in 2020. That would be on Abbott for missing what seems to be obvious.

---

Well, Abbott's worst trait is that it sometimes takes someone else to do something first for him to act. Following DeSantis comes to mind. He's a "better late than never" type of Governor.

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Texas has had representation stolen from us. What Virginia did is nothing like what Texas did.

---

Maybe, but had what happened in Texas not happened, especially the way it did, who knows if what's happened in every dem state since would've happened at all.

---

So it's OK that actual Americans are denied representation? Texas should just take it, like we have had to feed, educate, and provide healthcare for illegals?

---

No, Texas shouldn't.

Abbott should have done something years earlier if the reasoning for doing it when he did wasn't because Trump told him it needed to be done, but because it was done back in 2022 and in 2020. That would be on Abbott for missing what seems to be obvious.

---

Well, Abbott's worst trait is that it sometimes takes someone else to do something first for him to act. Following DeSantis comes to mind. He's a "better late than never" type of Governor.

---

One can only but imagine how much better off Texas would be with DeSantis at the helm instead of who we've got.

Quote:

---

Then you have the 2030 Census coming up shortly which should net Republicans even more seats.

---

Depends on who the POTUS is.
R - Will work to our advantage
D - Cheating by insane amounts

You thought last census was bad. If a D is POTUS, cheating will amp up by a factor of 10.

Who the president is won't matter much. The census bureau is like most other federal agencies. It is infested with leftist.

As point of evidence, who was president in 2020?

YouBet said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

I love how the leftists here keep repeating the "Texas started it" trope fed to them by their BS media sources

---

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

---

The Democrats are an entire party of George Constanzas.

---

When the other side does it:


When their side does it:

Coffee & Covid weighs in with excellent commentary, as usual:

Quote:

---

Yesterday, Law Commentary ran a terrific story headlined, "Judge Strikes Down Virginia Redistricting Amendment, Voids Special Election Results." The New York Times completely ignored this development, instead running a front-page story headlined, "How 'Yes' Won a Narrow Victory in Virginia's Redistricting Battle." It did not mention the judicial loss at all. Don't begrudge them; they wanted to stretch out their narrative a little longer before grappling with reality.

It happened fast. Really fast. Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley's order was issued within a business day of the election, and within hours after the vote was final. He ordered the Commissioner of Elections not to certify the results of the state's widely reported redistricting race a race that would have handed Democrats over 90% of Virginia's congressional seats even though nearly 40% of the state's residents are registered with the GOP.

The proposed new map has been both praised and mocked for its marvelous "creativity." Despite all that creative line-drawing, it barely "won" by only three points. In other words, they stopped counting after they got the win.

Tuesday's ballot referendum asked voters to approve the redistricting bill a constitutional amendment while describing its legal effect as "restoring fairness." I did not make that up. It could have more accurately said "to eliminate all but one Republican congressional district," but Democrats went with the equivalent of "free Ozempic." This violated a Virginia constitutional requirement that proposed amendments "accurately describe" their effect, which was just one of the seven things Judge Hurley found illegal.

Judge Hurley also found that the law placing the amendment on the ballot violated various clear rules in the Virginia Constitution, so he struck it down and blocked the election results from having any effect. He called the bill's "restoring fairness" description "flagrantly misleading." He said the bill was rushed, violating a constitutional requirement of at least 90 days between passing a bill and holding an election on it. It also broke a rule requiring amendments to wait for the next House general election which won't happen in Virginia until 2027. It also broke a rule requiring amendments to be limited to a single issue.
The vote itself was characteristically hinky, although no trad-media was brave enough to mention it. Independent analysts reported that the redistricting surged into first place during late-night mail-in ballot counting, featuring yet another statistical anomoly in which 73% of ballots oddly went "yes" even though the in-person electorate only ran around 45% yes.

More oddly, there were three distinct "f-shaped" surges throughout the night's counting in a single county, which rescued the failing bill and then barely nudged redistricting approval over the top what the Times blandly called "a narrow victory":

Is it just me, or do these late-night f-shaped surges always go the same direction?
President Trump noticed it, too, and called the election "RIGGED":

Like the Times, most of corporate media ignored Judge Hurley's order striking down the election. Maybe it will just go away if we ignore it hard enough. The last thing they need is any headlines like "Judge Immediately Strikes Redistricting Vote Down as Illegal." Wherever trad-media did report the story, every single headline focused on the pending appeal, which hasn't been filed or even drafted yet. For example, here's the Hill's version:

Not one of the stories I reviewed, including the Hill's article, cited any actual reason for the appeal, such as whatever Judge Hurley supposedly got wrong.

Judge Hurley's 5-page order is tight, well-written, clear, and provides very little for the appellate courts to work with. I won't predict anything you know how it's going in the courts these days but he made the order as difficult to overturn as a circuit judge could possibly do. I can't wait to see what state AG Jason Miyares comes up with in his appellate brief.

Meantime, the Virginia referendum has failed. Its legal shortcomings are now exposed in a judicial finding in plain language and were so obvious that the judge got the order out the same day the vote finished counting. Calling it a mere narrative setback is far too kind.

---

Well said. Thanks for posting.

"Restoring fairness" - you can't hate liberals enough, they really are the worst. Yes, like the meme says YOU are the baddies.

All the lemmings whining about Texas apparently haven't been told Democrats have been doing this for decades.

In Illinois, Trump received a larger percentage of the popular vote than Harris did in Texas in 2024 (43.47% for Trump in the Sucker State, 42.46% for Harris in Texas.). Yet in Texas, Democrats have representation from 34% of the Texas House delegation, while Republicans in Illinois are represented by just 3 of 17 representatives in their state's House delegation. That equals roughly 18% of the Illinois delegation in a state where the Republican can expect heavy support in agricultural areas making up far more than 18% of the population.

Trump is just seeing this for what it is and asking his party why they don't fight fire with fire.

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Texas needs to redraw again. Limit the Dems to one seat to neutralize VA. Every red state needs to re-draw immediately.

---

Do that, and you may end up dummymandering the state, taking safe R districts and putting them into lean R districts. The real question though is has that already happened?

---

You carve up the blue city centers. Have you seen the new VA map? 5 different districts include a northern section that's like a 5 mile radius.

Carve up Houston and Dallas and San Antonio like wise. Inside 610 in Houston gets carved up! No more Dem reps.

Even more exaggerated that this to get your numbers.

---

Incorrect. You do the opposite. I would draw a district that encompassed Houston, went up I 45 including only the interstate ROW, included DFW, went down 35 to include only the interstate ROW, encomassed Waco, down to the Austin metroplex and down to the SA metroplex.

That would be one district. The rest of the state could be divided into respective districts along logical lines. That would give the D's 1 House seat only. Damn the luck.

schmellba99 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Texas needs to redraw again. Limit the Dems to one seat to neutralize VA. Every red state needs to re-draw immediately.

---

Do that, and you may end up dummymandering the state, taking safe R districts and putting them into lean R districts. The real question though is has that already happened?

---

You carve up the blue city centers. Have you seen the new VA map? 5 different districts include a northern section that's like a 5 mile radius.

Carve up Houston and Dallas and San Antonio like wise. Inside 610 in Houston gets carved up! No more Dem reps.

Even more exaggerated that this to get your numbers.

---

Incorrect. You do the opposite. I would draw a district that encompassed Houston, went up I 45 including only the interstate ROW, included DFW, went down 35 to include only the interstate ROW, encomassed Waco, down to the Austin metroplex and down to the SA metroplex.

That would be one district. The rest of the state could be divided into respective districts along logical lines. That would give the D's 1 House seat only. Damn the luck.

---

I'm good with that too.

annie88 said:

---

What the hell is up with Arizona and New Mexico.

You wouldn't think they'd be largely blue areas.

---

I believe you also have the snow bird impact of the northern migration to AZ.

Prosperdick said:

---

"Restoring fairness" - you can't hate liberals enough, they really are the worst. Yes, like the meme says YOU are the baddies.

---

An amendment written by democrats for Democrats.

Logos Stick said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Texas needs to redraw again. Limit the Dems to one seat to neutralize VA. Every red state needs to re-draw immediately.

---

Do that, and you may end up dummymandering the state, taking safe R districts and putting them into lean R districts. The real question though is has that already happened?

---

You carve up the blue city centers. Have you seen the new VA map? 5 different districts include a northern section that's like a 5 mile radius.

Carve up Houston and Dallas and San Antonio like wise. Inside 610 in Houston gets carved up! No more Dem reps.

Even more exaggerated that this to get your numbers.

---

Incorrect. You do the opposite. I would draw a district that encompassed Houston, went up I 45 including only the interstate ROW, included DFW, went down 35 to include only the interstate ROW, encomassed Waco, down to the Austin metroplex and down to the SA metroplex.

That would be one district. The rest of the state could be divided into respective districts along logical lines. That would give the D's 1 House seat only. Damn the luck.

---

I'm good with that too.

---

Neither would pass. The speaker relies on democrats for his power. He would never let anything like that happen.

Quote:

---

I am personally curious what is taking DeSantis so long. From the stuff I have read, most current Florida reps are nervous about unintended consequences as it is tricky in South Florida to serve up reliable shifts.

---

They are waiting on Louisiana vs Calais. When SCOTUS strikes down Section 2 of the VRA Florida won't have to respect boundaries to protect black voting districts. They will be free to draw maps however they wish and maximize GOP seats. The VRA is what always made redistricting tricky because you had to be cognizant of those black districts while at the same time drawing safe GOP districts. With free reign you can do whatever you want and pick apart those reliably blue black districts and dilute them with overwhelming red voters.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

I am personally curious what is taking DeSantis so long. From the stuff I have read, most current Florida reps are nervous about unintended consequences as it is tricky in South Florida to serve up reliable shifts.

---

They are waiting on Louisiana vs Calais. When SCOTUS strikes down Section 2 of the VRA Florida won't have to respect boundaries to protect black voting districts. They will be free to draw maps however they wish and maximize GOP seats. The VRA is what always made redistricting tricky because you had to be cognizant of those black districts while at the same time drawing safe GOP districts. With free reign you can do whatever you want and pick apart those reliably blue black districts and dilute them with overwhelming red voters.

---

If only the people in the black districts would realize the Democrats have been screwing them for decades and come over to the party that actually passed the Civil Rights Act.

So, implementation has this been halted I assume. Next steps are that it gets kicked up to VA SC? What is expected timing of that?

annie88 said:

---

What the hell is up with Arizona and New Mexico.

You wouldn't think they'd be largely blue areas.

---

NM is one of the poorest states in the nation and is dominated by Santa Fe and Albuquerque, both of which are hard blue. Santa Fe because of the rich hippie types that live there and Alb. becuause it is about as poor a city as you can get.

AZ is covered up with transplants from out of state, mostly California. Phoenix and Tucson run the state politically for the most part, both of which are blue. Also one of the most 'tarded states when it comes to elections.

The new lines in 22 that were drawn created three or four more Republican leaning districts

Maybe there is some game from eliminating the majority minority districts

The math has to work out, so every democratic vote voter that is taken out of a majority minority district. It has to be put in a republican district and vice versa, creating some very, very competitive districts instead of letting the Democrats have to very safe districts and the Republicans having six safe districts

YouBet said:

---

So, implementation has this been halted I assume. Next steps are that it gets kicked up to VA SC? What is expected timing of that?

---

Final order was entered. Appeal can be taken at any time now usually not to exceed 30 days. First move would be for the losers to file a notice of appeal. Expect that soon, within the next week. Then there's briefing schedules lasting several months, maybe maybe not oral arguments.

Caveat: Appeal court may dissolve the injunction allowing for certification of the vote upon emergency application.

HOWEVER having read the reasons for the judge's actions here, the judge was squarely on point on how the state constitution was repeatedly violated within that process. And that fact could speed up the appellate process.

AgsinGA said:

---

annie88 said:

---

What the hell is up with Arizona and New Mexico.

You wouldn't think they'd be largely blue areas.

---

I believe you also have the snow bird impact of the northern migration to AZ.

---

Ah. Now it makes sense.

Morons.

Quote:

---

Leftists absolutely did not see this coming, which is hilarious to me.

---

Because they've been cheating for so long and we're getting away with most of it they thought they could this time too. But they didn't.

The 'inexorable zero' when Democrats are in charge is always good to point out.

Republican voters make up 40% of New England. Democrats control the district lines.

Result:

🔴 — 0
🔵 — 27 pic.twitter.com/bRCxst8oGw

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 23, 2026

And how many 'red' states have zero Democrat US Representatives?

nortex97 said:

---

The 'inexorable zero' when Democrats are in charge is always good to point out.

Republican voters make up 40% of New England. Democrats control the district lines.

Result:

🔴 — 0
🔵 — 27 pic.twitter.com/bRCxst8oGw

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 23, 2026

And how many 'red' states have zero Democrat US Representatives?

---

B-b-but republicans started it!

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska,

Sq 17 said:

---

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska,

---

The distinction I'd draw is that those are not an entire region of the country, comprising around a fifth of our GDP, just a few ruby red states. By any metric, the Democrat/blue states that I have seen are far more partisan in their US House of Reps lines vs. the red states (largely a result of the VRA legally-misinterpreted mandates), but also rino's in state houses such as in Indiana/Texas (and in days gone by such as Colorado).

At one point I think Sean Trende or RCI had a good piece about these percentages but I am feeling too lazy to look for it.

Fine all play along

Until recently Maine had a Republican congressman not sure why he lost in 2019 ( likely abortion) but it had nothing to do with maps being redrawn because he lost his election In 2019 and the lines stayed approximately the same after the census and the incumbent D has won reelection a few times, Both districts in Maine are competitive at least by modern standards

FFS
Vermont has 1 congressmen
Delaware has 1 congressman
&
FFS
New Hampshire has 2
Rhode Island has 2
Maine has 2
And Hawaii has 2 well over half your list are states with only 1 or 2 congressional districts

for my list I did not include states with 2 or fewer congressmen because obviously 1 district states can not be gerrymandered and 2 districts states drawing a line that gives you 1&1 is a likely a gerrymander


Seeing as states with 1 or 2 congressmen are now to be included

I can add Idaho to the list granted Idaho only has 2 districts but the the population of Boise is divided between the two districts to make sure the Rs have a nice advantage in both districts
Seeing as you felt that NH and VT was a grave injustice guess I will also complain that the Dakota's and Montanas and Wyoming also are 100% represented by one party

Utah had a 100% R delegation which was obtained by making sure SLC was split resulting in every district being safely R But it looks like that gerrymander is being undone by the Utah government

I will conclude that mid decade redistricting is a terrible and indefensible idea
Most maps where one party is truly dominant are horribly gerrymandered and
the POTUS calling out to his loyalists Governots to find me a few extra representatives is a bad look

if it was Obama in 2014 of yall would have rightly lost your sh!+

Sq 17 said:

---

Fine all play along

for my list I did not include states with 2 or fewer congressmen because obviously 1 district states can not be gerrymandered and 2 districts states drawing a line that gives you 1&1 is a likely a gerrymander


Seeing as states with 1 or 2 congressmen are now to be included

I can add Idaho to the list granted Idaho only has 2 districts but the the population of Boise is divided between the two districts to make sure the Rs have a nice advantage in both districts
Seeing as you felt that NH and VT was a grave injustice guess I will also complain that the Dakota's and Montanas and Wyoming also are 100% represented by one party

Utah had a 100% R delegation which was obtained by making sure SLC was split resulting in every district being safely R But it looks like that gerrymander is being undone by the Utah government

I will conclude that mid decade redistricting is a terrible and indefensible idea
Most maps where one party is truly dominant are horribly gerrymandered and
the POTUS calling out to his loyalists Governots to find me a few extra representatives is a bad look

if it was Obama in 2014 of yall would have rightly lost your sh!+

---

1. Utah's map was recently manipulated by a judge sleeping with a Democrat litigator in the case before her.

2. Obama never has said a word about disenfranchised republicans/conservatives in Illinois to my knowledge.

3. There is no reason mid-decade redistricting is morally wrong, but for some faith in the census, which is misplaced imho. And this is borne out by Obama's endorsement of the efforts in Virginia.

The rest of your points are similarly misguided in my opinion. Republicans continue to need to be driven by a need to play by the Democrats game rules in the south and midwest (IN). Statistically, Republicans are highly under-represented in Democrat states in the US House vs. the opposite in state houses controlled by D:R.