This event scores extremely low on constitutional damage (0.13) but very high on distraction/hype (42.31), yielding D=-42.18. The accusation lacks concrete mechanism detail - gerrymandering is typically a state legislative function, not federal executive action. No actual redistricting change is documented. The 'election_admin_change' mechanism is invoked but not substantiated. A-score: Only election driver activated at minimal level (1/5) due to accusation without evidence of actual interference. Severe mechanism penalty (0.3) applied for vague/unsubstantiated claim. Single-state scope modifier 0.7. Severity multipliers reduced for lack of durability/precedent given no actual policy change occurred. B-score: High Layer 1 (71.5/100) - strong outrage bait (California governor attacking Trump on Texas issue), good media friendliness (partisan conflict), moderate meme potential. Layer 2 (54.5/100) shows high mismatch (accusation severity vs. lack of concrete action), pattern-matching to gerrymandering concerns. Intentionality at 8/15 for partisan source, vague mechanism, no evidence, cross-state political theater. This is classic List B: political accusation generating significant media attention and partisan engagement without corresponding constitutional damage or documented mechanism of harm.