The California Republican Party has filed a lawsuit against Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, and Shirley Weber, Secretary of State of California, arguing that the new maps are unconstitutional because they improperly use voters race as a factor in drawing districts and asks the court to block them from taking effect.
The Dhillon Law Group, founded by Harmeet Dhillon, now Asst. US Attorney General for Civil Rights at the US Dept. of Justice under President Trump is representing them.
Asking the courts to put the initiative on hold will, hopefully, allow for the legally established districts by the Redistricting Commission to stand until they meet again after the 2030 census.
The plaintiffs’ attorney in the federal lawsuit filed last week said the proposition will be found unconstitutional, because the Legislature had no legal basis to move forward with a redistricting effort.
“The record we have established that, before the maps were voted upon and after analyses were conducted that concluded that there was no voting rights problem in California’s prior maps for the Legislature to remedy” he said. Further there is no evidence whatsoever that the California legislature in fact circulated any such analysis to the legislators for them to consider when they cast their votes to launch Proposition 50.”
Prop 50 establishes new congressional district maps for the 2026 midterm elections that will also be used for the 2028 and 2030 elections. An analysis by the election news website Ballotpedia said it would shift five Republican-held congressional districts toward Democrats.
Democrats currently hold a 43-9 advantage in the state’s House Delegation. So potentially shifting 5 to Democrat means that California Republican voters would be shut out of representation even further.
The lawsuit, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claims the state’s move to redraw its congressional lines is unconstitutional and violates the 14th and 15th Amendments for redistricting on the basis of race, “specifically to favor Hispanic voters, without cause or evidence to justify it.”
“While the Constitution entrusts States with designing congressional districts, the Supreme Court has also held that states may not, without a compelling reason backed by evidence that was in fact considered, separate citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit, filed by the California Republican Party along with a group of California voters, including GSRW leadership, and Republican candidates, is the latest pushback in a growing list of litigation across the country attempting to counter gerrymandering in the sweeping redistricting war.
This is a great move. The sad part is that the Governor and Legislature spent over $200,000,000 of tax dollars for this effort. Money that could definitely have been better spent.
This suit will be watched closely and we should all be glad that this action has been taken.
Submitted by the Golden State Republican Women (GSRW) Legislative Analyst Committee Valerie Evans, Lou Ann Flaherty, and Elaine Freeman
Follow Up On Lawsuit Against Prop 50
A date is set for the California GOP’s lawsuit against the state’s redistricting plan, in which it will argue that Proposition 50 is unconstitutional.
Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against California’s redistricting plan to appear in court on Dec. 3 for an initial hearing, according to documents shared with the Washington Examiner.
Republican California state Assemblyman David Tangipa and his Republican colleagues filed the lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber after they said the redistricting plan predominantly uses race for allocating political power. If upheld by the court, both of these allegations would be in direct violation of the Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments.
The initial appearance would provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs and intervenor plaintiffs to present arguments for a temporary court order against Prop 50, commonly referred to as a preliminary injunction.
In the hearing, Newsom’s team will also present arguments against the preliminary injunction, which must be filed with the court by Nov. 21.
The hearing will also give the Justice Department and the California GOP an opportunity to respond to the defendant’s arguments, which they will submit to the court before Nov. 24.
Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests,” the Republicans’ lawsuit says.
Tangipa argued that the only reason voters of the heavily Democratic state passed Prop 50 on Nov. 4 was because the electorate was unaware of the racial discrimination in Newsom’s redistricted congressional map, and were only focused on handing President Donald Trump a defeat instead.
“Prop 50 was a pretty big push for them, and they had to do a lot,” Tangipa said. “They didn’t even run for Prop 50; they just ran against Trump.”
Prop 50 passed during the special election with nearly 65% of the vote.
If Prop 50, also known as the Election Rigging Response Act, were to be upheld by the court, Democrats could flip as many as five Republican-held California districts next year.
Submitted by the Golden State Republican Women (GSRW) Legislative Analyst Committee Valerie Evans, Lou Ann Flaherty, and Elaine Freeman
