Miami must redo their district areas. I guess we might lose the case in Louisiana, but maybe not.

It definitely should stay 7-7.

I hope we can claw back some seats in NY from that disastrous multi-year in the making Andrew Cuomo ratfucking that took us from a 21-5 Dem advantage for sure (and possibly 22-4 or even 23-3 Dem advantage) and took us down to only 15 D, 11 R. We lost a net 12 to 16 seats in just NY, which flipped the House by itself to the Rethugs in 2022, all because of Cuomo's obsessive war decade or so long against the NYC progressives in Albany. He rammed through a ridiculous re-districting scheme, he had conservative Dems switch to indy in the NY Senate and took away the Dem majority for several years, and he stacked the NY state courts with Rethug judges, one of whom fucked us with the 2022 map. Andrew Cuomo is the single most responsible Democratic politician for us losing the House in 2022.

Adding in NC, and that is a net swing of 18 to as many as 24 net US House seats we lost just from 2 states over 2 elections (unless we claw some seats back in NY, like I already stated).

Link to tweet

Here's a good explainer from Marc Elias:

The Purcell Principle

https://www.democracydocket.com/purcell/

When is it too close to an election to change voting laws and district maps? The heart of this question goes back to a six-page order released by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 that created a legal concept known as the Purcell principle. The Purcell principle is the idea that courts should not change voting or election rules too close to an election in order to avoid confusion for voters and election officials alike.

However, a big question around timing remains unanswered in the legal community: When is it too close to an election to change voting laws? This page will serve as a resource where you can read background information about the Purcell principle, find further reading and review a repository of cases highlighting the range of applications of what qualifies as “too close” to an election.

What is the Purcell principle?

Let’s back up to the 2006 midterm elections when the Supreme Court, in deciding Purcell v. Gonzalez, reinstated a previously blocked citizenship law in Arizona just two and a half weeks before Election Day. In justifying its decision, the Court considered the timing of upcoming elections and determined that blocking the law weeks before Election Day caused confusion for both voters and election administrators. Importantly, in its ruling, the Court did not draw a line in the sand for what it defines as too close to an election to alter voting rules.

From blocking pandemic-era voting reforms to reinstating gerrymandered congressional maps, the Supreme Court has cited Purcell in ways that are inconsistent and vague, opening the door for unnecessary voter disenfranchisement and unfair districts. In turn, lower courts have applied their own interpretations of the principle, pointing to various applications in the Supreme Court to justify their rationale of when it’s “too close” to an election to change voting rules.

*snip*


In the Louisiana case, the Republicans intentionally drew an illegal map because they thought they did it early enough that the Supremes would rule it unconstitutional and then Republicans could run through a new map that was unconstitutional IN REPUBLICANS FAVOR. They were counting on the Supremes applying Purcell to that map, which would allow them to use the new Republican map for the next election.

The liberal justices don't agree with Purcell to begin with, and are even more pissed the RWNJs on the court are applying it so early. They understand that Republicans will, with help of the majority of Supremes, push unconstitutional voting laws and maps knowing they'll be allowed to use them for at least one election cycle.