Federal court allows California’s new congressional map to take effect

A federal court panel has cleared the way for California to use newly redrawn congressional districts in the 2026 midterm elections, handing a significant victory to Democrats and Governor Gavin Newsom. The three-judge panel rejected Republican efforts to block the maps, finding that the redistricting plan was driven by partisan considerations rather than illegal racial discrimination.

The ruling came after the California Republican Party, along with the Department of Justice under the Trump administration, sued to block Proposition 50, the ballot measure that voters approved in November with overwhelming support. Republicans had argued the new maps were drawn to favor Latino voters in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The court found no merit to those claims. In the majority opinion, Judge Josephine Staton wrote that the evidence showed Proposition 50 was exactly what it claimed to be: a political gerrymander designed to flip five Republican-held seats to Democrats. The decision was 2-1, with Judge Kenneth Lee dissenting.

Background

California's redistricting effort grew out of a partisan battle that began in Texas. After President Trump urged Texas to redraw its congressional maps to create five new Republican seats, Democratic leaders in California responded by pushing for their own redistricting plan. California voters approved Proposition 50 during a special election in November, with an overwhelming majority supporting the new district boundaries.

The new maps were designed to counter what Democrats saw as Republican gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. The plan put forward by the Democratic-led California legislature specifically aimed to help Democrats gain ground in the House of Representatives.

This legal battle reflects a broader wave of redistricting litigation playing out across the country. The Supreme Court's approach to these cases has shifted in recent years. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims cannot be challenged in federal court, meaning Republicans had to argue their case on racial grounds rather than political ones.

Key Details

The Republican challenge centered on claims that the mapmaker, Paul Mitchell, had prioritized racial considerations when drawing the districts. Republicans pointed to statements suggesting that one of Mitchell's first priorities was drawing a replacement Latino majority district in the middle of Los Angeles.

However, the court noted something important: Republicans had not raised racial gerrymandering concerns during the legislative debate over the map. Instead, they had repeatedly described it as a political power grab. The court concluded that Republicans had abandoned their argument to voters and switched to claiming it was a racial gerrymander only after filing their lawsuit.

"The evidence presented reflects that Proposition 50 was exactly what it was billed as: a political gerrymander designed to flip five Republican-held seats to the Democrats." – Judge Josephine L. Staton

The Supreme Court Connection

The federal court's decision was influenced by a recent Supreme Court ruling on Texas's redistricting plan. In December, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to keep its redrawn maps, effectively endorsing the idea that states can redraw districts for partisan advantage. The Supreme Court explicitly noted that Texas adopted its map first, then California responded with its own map to counteract what Texas had done.

This Supreme Court decision made it significantly harder for Republicans to challenge California's maps. Legal experts had predicted that Republicans faced an uphill battle given the Texas precedent, and the federal court's ruling confirmed those predictions.

The Vote Count

California voters approved Proposition 50 during a special election in November with strong support from the electorate. The measure authorized the new congressional district map that the Democratic-led legislature had placed on the ballot.

What This Means

The ruling allows California to move forward with candidate filing and ballot preparation under the new district lines for the 2026 elections. The new maps are expected to give Democrats a better chance at winning five additional House seats, which could shift the balance of power in Congress.

California's Attorney General Rob Bonta noted that every single challenge against Proposition 50 has now failed. He said the decision upholds the will of the people who voted to approve the measure.

Governor Newsom framed the victory as a response to Republican actions in Texas. "Republicans' weak attempt to silence voters failed," he said in a statement. "California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 — to respond to Trump's rigging in Texas — and that is exactly what this court concluded."

Republicans are expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but legal experts say the odds are against them getting the high court to block California's maps. The recent Supreme Court decision allowing Texas to keep its partisan gerrymander has made it much harder for Republicans to succeed with their legal challenge.

The case highlights a significant shift in how courts are handling redistricting disputes. With partisan gerrymandering no longer challengeable in federal court, states now have broad latitude to redraw maps based on political considerations. This has opened the door to an escalating cycle of redistricting battles between states controlled by different political parties, with each side trying to gain advantage through map redraws.