In a major victory for Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic party, a federal court ruled Wednesday that California can use its newly configured boundaries for congressional districts for the 2026 midterm elections, increasing Democrats\u2019 odds of winning five additional U.S. House seats in the state next year and seizing control of the chamber.<\/p>\n
The GOP asked a federal court in Los Angeles to temporarily block California\u2019s new map of congressional districts, which Democrats engineered to favor their party\u2019s candidates and counter similar partisan gerrymandering from Texas and other GOP-led states. <\/p>\n
Attorneys for the GOP argued that the new district maps, placed on the ballot by the Democratic-led state Legislature, were unconstitutional because they illegally favor Latino voters<\/p>\n
An overwhelming majority of California voters approved the new district boundaries during the Nov. 4 special election when they passed Proposition 50.<\/p>\n
Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to boost Democrats\u2019 prospects of flipping the House in the midterms after President Trump pressed Texas to redraw maps to prop up the GOP\u2019s narrow House majority.<\/p>\n
Using the new California map in next year\u2019s election would not only give Democrats a better chance of shifting the balance of power in Congress and blocking Trump\u2019s agenda during the second half of his term. It also could elevate Newsom\u2019s status among Democrats, allowing him to pitch himself as the nation\u2019s most effective challenger to Trump as he weighs a 2028 White House run<\/a>. <\/p>\n The judges\u2019 decision likely will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the California Republican Party and the Trump\u2019 administration\u2019s Department of Justice. <\/p>\n Legal experts say the odds are against Republicans getting the Supreme Court to block California\u2019s new congressional districts. Earlier this month the high court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its newly drawn congressional map, which could give Republicans up to five extra seats.<\/p>\n A federal court previously blocked Texas\u2019 map, finding racial considerations probably made it unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court indicated it viewed the redrawing of the Texas district lines as motivated primarily by partisan politics, not race. In its ruling, it explicitly drew a connection between Texas and California, noting that several states have redrawn their congressional map \u201cin ways that are predicted to favor the State\u2019s dominant political party.\u201d<\/p>\n As Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued<\/a> in a concurrence: \u201cThe impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California), was partisan advantage pure and simple.\u201d<\/p>\n Even before the Supreme Court\u2019s Texas decision, legal experts said they thought Republicans faced an uphill battle in blocking California\u2019s maps.<\/p>\n \u201cThis was a long shot of a claim from the beginning,\u201d said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount. \u201cIt\u2019s a claim that, under current law, just isn\u2019t supported by the facts… \u2014 and the Supreme Court just turned a dramatically uphill case into Everest.\u201d<\/p>\n One of the quirks of the legal battle over gerrymandering in California and Texas is that it is not possible to challenge the new maps on the grounds that they are drawn to give one political party an advantage. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled<\/a> that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court. That left the GOP in California challenging the new maps on racial grounds.<\/p>\n