this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
285 points (99.3% liked)

politics

25308 readers
2765 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 119 points 1 day ago (3 children)

California Democrats used a common legislative tactic called “gut and amend” to rush legislation for a special election on new election maps. Republicans say that violates the state constitution.

A common tactic that Republicans claim violates the state Constitution. Yet, they've never objected to the use of this common tactic before.

For gut-and-amends, the Legislature abides by a different rule added to the state constitution by voters in 2016: the language needs to be published for 72 hours before lawmakers can vote.

Ah, they've never objected because it doesn't actually violate the constitution.

“The public cannot have a voice if they do not know what’s going on,” said Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego, who is not party to the lawsuit. “What Governor Newsom and the legislators are trying to do is prevent the public from knowing what’s going on before it’s too late.”

I'm practically all the way on the other coast from California, essentially a continent away, and I am fully aware of what it going on there. If your constituents are that clueless about what's happening in your state right now, 27 more days isn't going to fix what's wrong with them.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

“The public cannot have a voice if they do not know what’s going on,” said Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego, who is not party to the lawsuit. “What Governor Newsom and the legislators are trying to do is prevent the public from knowing what’s going on before it’s too late.”

This garbage pile DeMaio has been creeping around San Diego's outskirts trying to weasle his way into any seat in government he can get his slimy mitts on. I fucking hate that guy and am sick of hearing about his stupid ass.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (3 children)

And this is why you should've spent more time acting and less time grandstanding Newsom. Stop threatening and just fucking do what you need to do.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trump asked for 5 votes from Texas a month ago.

In a month CA lawyers / legislators found a creative way around the 2008 / 2010 redistricting laws, they drafted new maps, they found a way around the legislative waiting periods, and they’re about get legislators to vote yes in their last session before Nov.

Maybe is they really hauled ass they could’ve done this in half a month, but a month is pretty damn fast.

Especially since they probably had to have lawyers look over damned near every piece of paper.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago

yeah but he had to get all our attention for his 2028 run

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

He won't. They'll run up to the line, screaming "Don't make us bluff you!", and then fail to deliver.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

So, I did a little digging, and apparently Prop 54 amended the state constitution in pertinent part as follows:

No bill may be passed or ultimately become a statute unless until the bill with any amendments has been printed, and distributed to the members, and published on the Internet, in its final form, for at least 72 hours before the vote, except that this notice period may be waived if the Governor has submitted to the Legislature a written statement that dispensing with this notice period for that bill is necessary to address a state of emergency, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 3 of Article XIII B, that has been declared by the Governor, and the house considering the bill thereafter dispenses with the notice period for that bill by a separate roll call vote entered in the journal, two thirds of the membership concurring, prior to the vote on the bill.

Given that the legislature hasn't been voted on yet, the publishing on the internet could be done immediately and satisfy the constitution. Alternatively, if the Democrats want to keep the plan secret until the last minute, Newsom could provide a written declaration of emergency, and since Democrats have a supermajority, they could easily provide the concurrence without a single Republican vote. Accordingly, I don't see the Republicans winning on this issue.