(The Center Square) – In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the 61-year-old Voting Rights Act, California lawmakers spoke out about how they see the landmark decision affecting the Golden State’s elections this year and in the future.
The court decided in Louisiana v. Callais that the Pelican State did not have a justifiable reason to create an additional majority-minority congressional district. The court’s conservative majority said there was no compelling interest that justified the state’s use of race in creating a district as required by Louisiana law and that the map created by a 2024 state law is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. That’s according to a summary of the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
“All it did was actually remove the racial justification for how you draw lines, and I think that’s the right decision,” Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno, told The Center Square. “Essentially, what the Supreme Court did was say that the United States has advanced far enough that race is not a barrier any more. I think that’s the right decision, and I can say that as the first-ever Polynesian elected to the state Legislature.”
Tangipa, who represents a majority-white district that includes parts of Fresno, Madera and Calaveras counties and all of Inyo, Mariposa, Mono and Tuolumne counties, pointed to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who said in the 1980s that at some point in the future, race won’t be needed as a justification for drawing electoral district lines.
“It proves that there is no racial barrier,” Tangipa said. “I believe it was the right call by the Supreme Court.”
Tangipa, who led the lawsuit against the administration of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom over California’s mid-decade redistricting effort that voters approved in November 2025, said the Supreme Court’s decision gives teeth to his argument against the Proposition 50 maps.
“The use of race and the way they did the Prop. 50 maps actually disenfranchised other racial groups,” Tangipa said. “As we’re moving forward with looking at what we’re going to do, it’s really just weighing in on the downstream effects. Will this show that race played a predominant factor in the lines that were drawn by the redistricting in Prop. 50?”
“We’re going to make sure we’re analyzing all possible options for what we need to do next,” Tangipa said.
Tangipa’s lawsuit, along with another similar lawsuit, Noyes vs. Newsom, were consolidated in federal court in March, according to previous reporting by The Center Square.
Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, also spoke out this week about the Louisiana vs. Callais decision, telling The Center Square that while he isn’t sure how it could affect the Prop. 50 lawsuit, he is against partisan redistricting.
“I think what we should do is just focus in on making sure we keep communities of interest together as much as possible,” Strickland said. “I hate partisan gerrymandering, because I hate when elected officials pick their constituents, not the other way around. Constituents should pick their elected officials.”
The Supreme Court’s decision could impact communities of color in different parts of the country, Strickland added.
“Will that affect folks around the country? Absolutely,” Strickland said. “I hope that people, when they draw their districts, they try to keep communities of interest together, as well as cities, but you’re not seeing that across the country. You’re seeing partisan gerrymandering across the country.”
Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz and chair of the Assembly Elections Committee, declined to answer questions through her communications director, who directed The Center Square to a press release issued April 29 about the Supreme Court decision. No press release was sent to The Center Square, and it was not published on Pellerin’s website.
