WASHINGTON \u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.<\/p>\n
With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump\u2019s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats. <\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that \u201cCalifornia\u2019s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to \u201cbolster\u201d Latino representatives in the Central Valley. <\/p>\n In response, the state\u2019s attorneys told the court<\/a> the GOP claims defied the public\u2019s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts. <\/p>\n Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state\u2019s 52 congressional districts to \u201cfight back against Trump\u2019s power grab in Texas.\u201d<\/p>\n He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats. <\/p>\n The voters approved the change in November. <\/p>\n While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state\u2019s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority. <\/p>\n \u201cBefore Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,\u201d they wrote. <\/p>\n It would be \u201cstrange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos. <\/p>\n The state\u2019s attorneys said that too was incorrect. \u201cThe Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50\u2019s enactment,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map<\/a> in a 2-1 decision. <\/p>\n \u201cWe find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,\u201d said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.<\/p>\n In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters. <\/p>\n