Gov. Gavin Newsom addresses reporters after signing a package of measures to redraw the state’s Congressional districts and put new maps before voters in a special election, in Sacramento, Calif.,Thursday, Aug. 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
California urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Republican efforts to block the state’s voter-approved congressional map Thursday, arguing that its elections are already underway and that stopping California now — after allowing Texas’ GOP gerrymander to proceed — would disrupt active campaigns and hand one party an unfair advantage.
California’s response lands as Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to freeze Proposition 50, the ballot measure California voters overwhelmingly passed last fall to redraw congressional districts in response to Texas’ midcycle Republican gerrymander.
A federal district court already refused to intervene and block the map. Now, California is telling the justices that stepping in would defy what the court has long warned against — changing election rules midstream.
At the center of the state’s argument is the Purcell principle, a Supreme Court doctrine that says courts should not alter election rules once an election is close or underway because of the risk of voter confusion and administrative chaos.
California’s message is simple: the Court applied Purcell to protect Texas’ map when its election was still far off — even after a lower court found Texas’ map was a racial gerrymander — and it must do the same here, where the election is even closer.
“About two months ago, this Court applied Purcell to allow Texas to use its recently enacted, partisan-gerrymandered map for the 2026 elections,” the state wrote. “At that point, the general election was eleven months away, and Texas’s primary election was four months off.”
California pointed out that the timeline now is even tighter.
“Since December 19, candidates have been authorized to collect voter signatures, which may be submitted in lieu of the candidate filing fee,” the response reads. “Candidates have needed to know for weeks which district they are running in and what its boundaries will be.”
Beyond timing, California framed the case as a test of fairness.
The state accused Republicans of asking the Court to impose one rule for GOP-led states and another for Democratic-led ones — blocking California’s response while letting Texas’ gerrymander stand.
“Plaintiffs are asking the Court to treat California’s map differently from how it treated Texas’s map,” the state added, “thereby allowing a Republican-led State to engage in partisan gerrymandering while forbidding a Democratic-led State from responding in kind.”
The filing repeatedly stressed that Proposition 50 was not imposed by politicians, as has been the case in GOP-controlled states, but approved directly by voters.
“Ultimately, California voters overwhelmingly approved the measure, with 64% voting in support,” the state wrote. “The requested relief would nullify the choice of millions of voters and displace state election laws in the middle of an active primary campaign.”
California’s response further underscored a striking irony: the Supreme Court has already described the very type of map Republicans are now challenging — using its own words — as partisan. In Texas’s redistricting case, multiple justices acknowledged that California’s response was driven by politics and nothing else.
“It is indisputable,” the Court wrote, “that the impetus for the new map in California was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
California ultimately seized on the Court’s own words to make Republicans’ case even weaker, arguing that they are not disputing that Proposition 50 is partisan — they are asking the Court to treat partisanship as illegal only when Democrats do it.