"An isolated blue event."
Is that what we're calling it now?
OP: With the supreme court blessing lots of packing, they might get a few more - but I agree, it feels like 5 might wind up adding competitive districts instead of slam dunks.
If Texas could give up being big, the real power move would be to split into multiple states and pack the senate.
I don't think California places as high value on geographic size* vs population or economic measures.
*IYKWIM
These days we don't place much value on population either.
OP: Ugh, I just read an article (ugh, Politico before I realized) about Jefferies and Newsom discussing retaliatory gerrymanders for California. A problem is that we DO have an independent commission for redistricting, so it'd be taking authority back from voters to politicians, which seems like pretext. It seems okay to threaten, in hopes that Texas and friends reconsider - but I really don't want them to actually do it.
Evidently, Newsom is musing loud enough that the local paper is writing about it -- https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article310796670.html
It's so much weaker as a threat, since it has to go before voters, instead of being a high handed, "just do it legislature" like Texas is threatening. (But I want them to have to go to voters, and not draw their own districts, so I'm mostly annoyed.)
I would vote for a state constitutional amendment to go back to partisan gerrymandering that shuts off as soon as a national ban is passed.
Although it would be interesting to try to add a formulaic partisan numeric outcome to the Redistricting Commission's mandates, so that incumbents still don't have a say in their own districts, and they still try to make them relatively compact and competitive. Democrats being the only game in 75% of town, there's meaningful competition among us.
They've given you an isolated blue event already.