Texas GOP Amendment Would Stop Democrats Winning Any State Election

[Duke of York]

If they do this, Dems should say only candidates who win a majority of counties with skyscrapers over 50 stories are eligible to win elections in their state. Equally fair.

Or just do state electoral colleges - in most states this would help Dems because Republicans waste more votes in large urban/suburban Dem counties than the other way around. Under this sort of sysmtem, places like Tarrant County becomes must-wins just for the GOP to have a chance at statewide victory and TX becomes a Dem leaning state.

No it would benefit Republicans.

It would only really benefits Republicans in WI assuming EVs are apportioned by County population and the EC was sufficiently large. In TX under this system the median County would be Williamson which voted for Biden in 2020. In Georgia, the median County would be Biden + 14 Cobb. In AZ and NV, Maricopa and Clark would literally be the election since they contain well over a majority of the population.

if you did by majority of counties a Republican would win statewide office almost every time except in New England and maybe California.

[politicallefty]

It's worth noting that Thomas has been talking about overruling OPOV; this is plausibly legal in that scenario.

OK, are there four other votes on SCOTUS for this?

Profoundly unlikely ATM.

This is the kind of thing Alito and Gorsuch would theoretically be open to, but there are 6 near certain votes against radical changes to election law like this given how Moore v. Harper came down last year.  It's quite possible Gorsuch is open to overturning OPOV at the state legislative level but not for US House districts.  My understanding is the former was a logical but novel application of the 14th Amendment, but the latter was a more literalist/originalist reading of constitutional language in Article 2.

Your understanding is correct. While Wesberry and Reynolds are often lumped together, they have quite different constitutional underpinnings as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the federal government. Given the decision in Moore, I certainly don't think Roberts would vote to overturn OPOV. I don't say that based on the opinion itself, but rather how he has moved on the issue over the past decade (note how his opinion for the Court in Rucho v. Common Cause supports the Court's opinion in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission instead of his own dissent). I still wouldn't want to get a case like this in front of SCOTUS though.

As I noted elsewhere, I think the recent case involving South Carolina was the first time we've seen any Justice call for the overruling of Baker v. Carr. I'm sure Alito shares his position, but he had the majority opinion. Gorsuch could've joined the Thomas concurrence, but he didn't. However, he may just not want to tip his hand.

[MarkD]

This is not a legislative proposal, it's a plank in the GOP platform, which doesn't count for diddly-squat. Party platforms are not worth the toilet paper they're written on.

Republicans hate democracy.

When tens of millions of American voters voted successfully to amend their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, and when the SCOTUS struck down all of those laws, the Democrats decried the former event and celebrated the latter, so clearly they hate democracy too.

[Bush did 311]

This is not a legislative proposal, it's a plank in the GOP platform, which doesn't count for diddly-squat. Party platforms are not worth the toilet paper they're written on.

Republicans hate democracy.

When tens of millions of American voters voted successfully to amend their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, and when the SCOTUS struck down all of those laws, the Democrats decried the former event and celebrated the latter, so clearly they hate democracy too.

Hundreds of millions of voters voted for the presidents that chose the justices that made that ruling, so what? Democracy is supposed to be self-correcting like that.

[Nyvin]

This is not a legislative proposal, it's a plank in the GOP platform, which doesn't count for diddly-squat. Party platforms are not worth the toilet paper they're written on.

Republicans hate democracy.

When tens of millions of American voters voted successfully to amend their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, and when the SCOTUS struck down all of those laws, the Democrats decried the former event and celebrated the latter, so clearly they hate democracy too.

I don't recall any Democratic state parties trying to enact agendas that would effectively shut Republicans out of power.

It's a good thing too, because in 2009-2010 Republicans were at one of their lowest points at the state level.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Texas GOP platform has always had really batsh!t stuff in it, during the Obama administration it even had some fringe things only weirdo libertarians care about like returning to the gold standard and state nullification of federal laws. This isn't surprising but doesn't mean much, especially since it has zero chance of passing even if it was actually pushed for.

[Yoda]

If they do this, Dems should say only candidates who win a majority of counties with skyscrapers over 50 stories are eligible to win elections in their state. Equally fair.

I think the much simpler and proportional response to this TX proposal would be for Democrats, in every state they control, to pass an amendment saying that a candidate must carry the state's most populous county in order to win a statewide election.

[TML]

If they do this, Dems should say only candidates who win a majority of counties with skyscrapers over 50 stories are eligible to win elections in their state. Equally fair.

I think the much simpler and proportional response to this TX proposal would be for Democrats, in every state they control, to pass an amendment saying that a candidate must carry the state's most populous county in order to win a statewide election.

This move would disadvantage them in some states, including Colorado - in that state, the most populous county (El Paso County) is still an R-leaning county. It would also jeopardize Jon Tester's survival in his home state in MT, since their most populous county (Yellowstone County) has consistently voted about 7-8 points more Republican than the statewide margin in recent elections, and Tester himself has only won this county once in his previous elections (in 2012, and that could be attributed in part to a strong Libertarian party performance that year).

[Skill and Chance]

If they do this, Dems should say only candidates who win a majority of counties with skyscrapers over 50 stories are eligible to win elections in their state. Equally fair.

I think the much simpler and proportional response to this TX proposal would be for Democrats, in every state they control, to pass an amendment saying that a candidate must carry the state's most populous county in order to win a statewide election.

This move would disadvantage them in some states, including Colorado - in that state, the most populous county (El Paso County) is still an R-leaning county. It would also jeopardize Jon Tester's survival in his home state in MT, since their most populous county (Yellowstone County) has consistently voted about 7-8 points more Republican than the statewide margin in recent elections, and Tester himself has only won this county once in his previous elections (in 2012, and that could be attributed in part to a strong Libertarian party performance that year).

There would seem to be a strong originalist/literalist argument that statewide elections are required by the 17th Amendment ("The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof..."), so I highly doubt this could be done for US Senate seats.

The greater risk here is that disproportionate stuff gets allowed for state level races, because of Gorsuch. 

I still don't think SCOTUS is anywhere near doing this.  I believe Roberts/Kavanaugh/Barrett have all joined opinions citing to the Baker v. Carr line of cases, for example.  However, overturning the Baker v. Carr line of cases is truly the closest thing to a single point of failure for American democracy as we know it, so it's worth keeping a close eye on.  Dem senators (and Republican senators from high population states/counties for that matter) should be aggressively vetting judicial nominees on this.  The "democracy is on the line" talk is almost always hyperbole, but if there's a serious challenge to Reynolds v. Sims/Wesberry v. Sanders/Gray v. Sanders, that would be different.

[Schiff for Senate]

Hate to minimize the bullsh**t the TXGOP peddles, but this proposal is so extreme that, ironically, it's not even worth considering. Assuming it were to go anywhere (which it wouldn't, given the state constitutional requirements), it would quickly get struck down by even the most hackish court in the country.

Still, this clearly shows that they're very desperate about maintaining their hold on TX. Good!

[Schiff for Senate]

If they do this, Dems should say only candidates who win a majority of counties with skyscrapers over 50 stories are eligible to win elections in their state. Equally fair.

Or just do state electoral colleges - in most states this would help Dems because Republicans waste more votes in large urban/suburban Dem counties than the other way around. Under this sort of sysmtem, places like Tarrant County becomes must-wins just for the GOP to have a chance at statewide victory and TX becomes a Dem leaning state.

No it would benefit Republicans.

It would only really benefits Republicans in WI assuming EVs are apportioned by County population and the EC was sufficiently large. In TX under this system the median County would be Williamson which voted for Biden in 2020. In Georgia, the median County would be Biden + 14 Cobb. In AZ and NV, Maricopa and Clark would literally be the election since they contain well over a majority of the population.

This is the best thing I've read all week.

[MarkD]

This is not a legislative proposal, it's a plank in the GOP platform, which doesn't count for diddly-squat. Party platforms are not worth the toilet paper they're written on.

Republicans hate democracy.

When tens of millions of American voters voted successfully to amend their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, and when the SCOTUS struck down all of those laws, the Democrats decried the former event and celebrated the latter, so clearly they hate democracy too.

Hundreds of millions of voters voted for the presidents that chose the justices that made that ruling, so what? Democracy is supposed to be self-correcting like that.

"Self-correcting"?!?!
Let me give you a true example of a democratic government, in the US, correcting itself after it had done something anti-gay. The city council of Cincinnati, Ohio had adopted an anti-discrimination ordinance that covered sexual orientation, hence, protecting gay, lesbian, and bisexual people from employment discrimination. But there was a faction of city residents who believed that the council did not create that ordinance to reflect the will of the citizens of the city, and those opponents drafted an amendment to the city charter to both repeal that ordinance and prevent anything similar from being adopted in the future. In a referendum held around 31 years ago (November 1993), the voters of Cincinnati approved that amendment by a wide margin. Thus the participating citizens gave all employers a free pass to discriminate against existing or potential gay employees all they want.
That new provision of the city charter was not struck down by the court system. Whatever the district Court may have decided (which I'm not aware of their ruling), the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the new amendment was not unconstitutional. (They came to that conclusion twice; the second time after a request to rehear and reconsider the case.) And the SCOTUS declined to even hear the case.
But does that mean that gay people in Cincinnati are still being subjected to employment discrimination? No. Almost exactly 11 years later, in another citywide referendum, the voters repealed the amendment to the city charter they had adopted before, and within two years, the city council re-adopted an ordinance to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation (and gender identity. In recent times, the anti discrimination ordinance has been fortified and bolstered.
THAT'S a democratic polity self-correcting its poor judgment!
Judicial review - courts decreeing that certain laws are unconstitutional - can only be validly called democratic self-correction when the courts have rendered an accurate interpretation of a clause in the Constitution -- accurate in the sense that the contemporary court correctly understood what the pertinent clause in the Constitution was intended to mean. If the interpretation was correct, then judicial review supports democracy, not contradicts it. When the interpretation is not correct - not what was intended - then the judicial branch has usurped the power to make law, usurped it from the legislative branch, the truly democratic branch of government.
SCOTUS decisions such as Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges were not at all based on the intended meaning of anything in the Constitution. Those decisions went beyond the originally understood meaning of the clauses in the Constitution which were invoked. Those decisions came from the political views and sympathies of the majority Justices, not the political views or sympathies of the body politic that adopted the 14th Amendment. So those are NOT examples of self-correction. Got it?