California Republicans have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put the Democrats’ new congressional maps on hold, arguing two Democrat-appointed judges reviewing the plan defied the Supreme Court and the facts of the case in allowing the map to remain in place, despite evidence the new map amounted to an illegal racial gerrymander intended to create majority-Latino Democratic congressional seats.
On Jan. 20, California Republican state lawmakers filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition asked the court to block California from using the new congressional map drawn by Democrats in Sacramento and approved by a majority of California voters in last November’s Proposition 50 special election.
In the filing, the Republicans say the 2-1 majority on the federal judicial panel reviewing the congressional map wrongly decided the maps should stand, despite strong evidence they were drawn with the clear intent of unconstitutionally drawing district lines based on the race of voters, rather than just for acceptable partisan gain.
In that holding, the panel’s majority said the maps should be allowed despite the evidence, because the maps were ultimately approved by the voters. Thus, to overturn the map, judges would need to determine the intent of voters, rather than evaluating the intent of those who actually drew the maps.
Republicans said that reasoning flips the correct established process on its head.
“The majority’s apparent belief that a State may launder a mapmaker’s unconstitutional line-drawing through a legislative or popular vote not only would lead to untenable results, but also directly contravenes decades of this Court’s cases…,” the Republicans wrote in their petition.
The matter landed at the Supreme Court less than a week since the federal judicial panel ruled the maps should stand.
Those maps had been created by California Democrats, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, amid a special mid-decade gerrymandering initiative, in a brazen bid to increase Democratic representation in Congress.
Newsom and his fellow Democrats had asserted the move was needed to counteract efforts by Republicans in other states, and Texas, in particular, to favor the election of Republicans in 2026 and reduce the chances of a midterm Democratic takeover of the U.S. House.
Unlike those other states, California’s process required Democrats to take another step: Securing approval from voters directly through a special referendum to “temporarily” amend the state constitution and allow the state legislature to draw the new maps, rather than the state’s constitutionally established independent redistricting commission.
The referendum question was submitted under the tital of Proposition 50.
Voters approved Prop 50 in a special election at the beginning of November, appearing to clear the way for the map to be approved.
After the vote, however, California Republicans challenged the law, and were later joined by the Justice Department under President Donald Trump. The lawsuits asserted the new gerrymandered maps amounted to illegal “racial gerrymanders” designed to favor Latinos, and specifically, to “shore up” support for Democrats from Latino voters.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly refused to strike down gerrymanders intended to increase partisan power, the court has indicated it could consider challenges based on accusations district maps are drawn to favor or dilute the political power of certain racial groups.
Plaintiffs noted the man credited with drawing the maps, identified as Paul Mitchell, explicitly and publicly said he and Democrats intended to use the Prop 50 process to create more majority Latino districts.
Those statements were also echoed by Democratic state lawmakers as the maps were advanced in Sacramento.
Both Mitchell and Democratic lawmakers refused to testify in the court challenge to deny those allegations of racial discrimination, citing legislative privilege.
According to Republicans’ petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, this should mean their claims concerning the racial component in the Prop 50 maps should stand “unrebutted.”
However, in their ruling, the majority of the judicial review panel said neither Mitchell’s intent as the mapmaker nor the intent of Democratic lawmakers mattered at all. They said California’s constitutional system, which places “the people” and state legislature on equal footing and which required “the people” to approve Prop 50, means the courts must instead evaluate the intent of “the people.”
And they said they believed the evidence indicates the voters of California only intended to increase the power of Democrats in Washington, D.C.
The majority also mocked Republicans in their holding, saying Prop 50 opponents should have campaigned against the measure on the grounds of being an illegal racial gerrymander if they wanted their legal claims to be taken seriously after the election.
The majority decision was authored by U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and joined by U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu, who was appointed to the court by former President Joe Biden.
In dissent, however, U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth Lee said his colleagues got the case and the law wrong.
Lee said proof is abundant that California lawmakers and Mitchell drew the maps as they did specifically to shore up Democratic support among Latino voters “as part of a racial spoils system to award a key constituency that may be drifting away from the Democratic party.”
And he said U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires courts evaluating cases like this to look at the intent of the mapmakers, not just of those who ultimately approve the maps.
“To be sure, California’s main goal was to add more Democratic congressional seats. But that larger political gerrymandering plan does not allow California to smuggle in racially gerrymandered seats,” Lee wrote.
The Republicans’ new petition to the Supreme Court asks the court to side with Judge Lee on the question, and to knock down the majority holding.
The petition doesn’t ask the Supreme Court to redraw the maps now.
Rather, Republicans have asked the high court to direct California to instead use the preexisting congressional district maps that had been created and approved by the state’s independent redistricting commission, as established under the California state constitution, at least until the Republicans’ court challenge to the new maps can be fully resolved.
The Republicans asked the Supreme Court to take action before Feb. 9, the date by which candidates must file to run.
In posts on social media platform X, California Republicans and one of their lead attorney son the case said the petition must be granted to avoid essentially signing off on what they said are illegal and unconstitutional maps.
“Constitutional violations do not become lawful simply because they are put to a popular vote,” said attorney Mark Meuser, of the Dhillon Law Group, who is among those representing the Republicans in the case.
“California cannot create districts by race, and the state should not be allowed to lock in districts that break federal law,” said California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin in a statement.
“Our emergency application asks the Supreme Court to put the brakes on Prop 50 now, before the Democrats try to run out the clock and force candidates and voters to live with unconstitutional congressional districts. Californians deserve fair districts and clean elections, not a backroom redraw that picks winners and losers based on race.”
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the petition.
