let the "whatabouts" begin.

(no message)

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=263888

much board space. Do much better

2026 Mid-Term Elections...which would help the GOP keep its Congressional House majority...and presumedly keep Trump from being investigated for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Here's an AI summary of how it all went down...note that TX voters had no say in the matter, whereas, VA's citizens did. Lesson: "Don't throw rocks when you live in a Glass House".
----------------------

AI Overview
Texas has not passed a single specific, permanent law that generally authorizes redistricting between decennial census surveys. Instead, the Texas Legislature has voluntarily undertaken "mid-decade" (or mid-cycle) redistricting by passing new maps during special sessions, most notably in 2003 and 2025

Key historical instances of Texas mid-decade redistricting:
2003: Led by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the Texas Legislature passed a new congressional map for partisan advantage, replacing a court-ordered map that had been used in the 2002 elections

. This 2003 map was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in LULAC v. Perry (2006), which ruled that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law

2025: On August 29, 2025, Governor Greg Abbott signed new congressional maps into law that were passed during a special session to replace the maps enacted in 2021, aiming to add five Republican seats ahead of the 2026 election

Legal Context
While the Texas Constitution (Article III, Section 28) requires redistricting during the first regular session following the census, there is no explicit prohibition against doing it again later in the decade

. Mid-decade redistricting is rare and often follows either court orders—when previous maps are declared invalid—or political, voluntary actions to redraw lines
------------------

Funny how the board lefties are always backing the lawless antics of the Democrat party.

Virginia court declares state's redistricting vote was unconstitutional in legal win for Republicans

By Alec Schemmel Fox News
Published April 22, 2026 7:57pm EDT

Judge blocks Virginia redistricting referendum certification, calls move unconstitutional

Republicans are cheering a circuit court victory in Virginia that showed Democrats' redistricting efforts in Virginia are not quite over yet despite a referendum to accept a new map drawn by Democrats getting approved by voters Tuesday.

Virginia Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday, one day after the Democrat redistricting referendum passed, that all votes for or against the proposed redistricting amendment were unconstitutional, citing rules that impose certain requirements that the referendum did not meet.

There are a handful of cases making their way through the Virginia court system challenging various aspects of the referendum, including the one Hurley ruled on Wednesday.

"The Tazewell Circuit Court just ruled the referendum unconstitutional. The Judge entered an injunction blocking certification of the election & denied a motion to stay pending appeal. A final order will be entered once drafted, & it will be immediately appealed," former Republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said on X after Hurley's ruling.

Shortly after the ruling came down, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, a Democrat who beat GOP incumbent Jason Miyares in November, indicated his office will "immediately file an appeal."

Cuccinelli, who heads the American Principles Project Election Transparency Initiative, indicated Wednesday there are four constitutional challenges to the referendum making their way through the courts, three of which are challenges to the amendment process itself.

"Virginia has a process to amend its constitution that has the General Assembly pass a proposed amendment and then have a state election — an intervening election — where the new House of Delegates was elected and so forth. And then that new General Assembly comes back and has to pass the exact same amendment," Cuccinelli told CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings on Wednesday.

"The General Assembly passed the amendment for the first time — called first passage, very creative — on Halloween. Well, these same Democrats, five years ago, gave us a 45-day election. So, voting began September 19 of 2025. Over a million people had already voted before first passage, and they want to treat that election as the intervening election. They're going to have a very difficult time with that."

Cuccinelli added that there are other "equally difficult" constitutional challenges Democrats are facing in this legal battle, which he said he expects to move quickly through the courts. Cuccinelli told Jennings he expects a final ruling on the matter by May.

Shortly after news of the Virginia circuit court ruling in Tazewell, Jones announced his office would be immediately appealing the measure. Jones argued that "an activist judge" should not have the power to veto "the People's vote."

"Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People's vote," Jones said Wednesday after the ruling. "We look forward to defending the outcome of last night's election in court."

Jay Jones addresses supporters after winning the Democratic nomination for Virginia attorney general as his wife, Mavis Jones, looks on in Norfolk, Va., June 17, 2025. (Trevor Metcalfe/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service)

Democrat strategist Adam Parkhomenko echoed Jones' criticism after the news broke Wednesday but also said he has expectations that Republicans' legal challenges will not hold up in court.

"Virginia voters spoke. MAGA lost. And now a rogue Republican judge is trying to override the will of the people because they didn’t like the outcome," Parkhomenko said on X. "That’s not democracy. That’s desperation."

Parkhomenko added he has "full confidence a higher court will overturn this nonsense quickly, and the will of Virginia voters will prevail."


Link: Virginia

(no message)

(no message)

The votes from being certified, especially a court ruling after the fact. Want to wager that this ruling gets overturned?

I don’t think so.

They are screaming that the Republicans are against democracy. All the while failing to mention that they did it illegally.

(no message)

He seeks to undermine faith in our democracy at every turn.

You know, like any good patriot.

(no message)

Both factions desire to only have one faction.

(no message)

like losing their jobs because DJT and Musk are pals. They decided the Republican gerrymandered districts didn’t work for them.