the order you point to is about race, not partisan, gerrymandering. It has no bearing on the issue
-
-
Replying to @MattPMiller
.
@MattPMiller@MakelyHome@HoustonChron You have failed to provide any legally valid proof of ANY type of gerrymandering.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
are you a lawyer sir? Because the analysis provided is legal proof. What you seek is case precedent
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattPMiller @RepBillFlores and
and i suspect that if the Supreme Court sides with the WI court that you may likely see...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattPMiller
.
@MattPMiller@MakelyHome@HoustonChron "likey" is your opinion, not a LEGAL opinion.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
likely is my belief in a lawsuit involving the 17th. It is unconstitutionally gerrymandered.
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MattPMiller
.
@MattPMiller@MakelyHome@HoustonChron Why don't you file the suit so you can find out if you are right?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RepBillFlores
interesting thought. Can you recommend a lawyer?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattPMiller1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @RepBillFlores @MattPMiller
Here's Gov. Abbot. Legal or not, I don't know, but I don't think "not-gerrymandered" is a defensible position.pic.twitter.com/PwjegDkecy
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
.@Chardros @MattPMiller If there had been allegations of illegality, the judges would have changed TX-17.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.