![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AP25226728570706-1024x683.jpg\")
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo\/Marcio Jose Sanchez)<\/p>\nCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo\/Marcio Jose Sanchez)<\/p>\n
A federal judge in Texas dismissed<\/a> a GOP lawsuit against California\u2019s new congressional redistricting plan ruling that the plaintiff, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), had no right to sue over another state\u2019s election laws. <\/p>\n The decision is a victory for California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) who defended<\/a> the state\u2019s Election Rigging Response Act and upcoming<\/a> Proposition 50 \u2014 a measure allowing voters to temporarily adopt a new congressional map for the 2026\u00a0 election.<\/p>\n Jackson claimed that California\u2019s plan was designed to \u201cengineer a Democratic majority in Congress.\u201d But U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, said the court lacked power even to hear the case.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Court begins \u2014 and ends \u2014 with standing,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cBecause Plaintiff does not have standing, the Court lacks jurisdiction to reach the merits of this dispute.\u201d<\/p>\n Kacsmaryk found that Jackson failed to show a personal injury \u2014 a constitutional requirement for bringing a federal lawsuit. His argument that California\u2019s redistricting plan could weaken Republican control of the U.S. House, the judge wrote, was not enough.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiff has failed to show that he will suffer a legally cognizable injury-in-fact,\u201d Kacsmaryk wrote. \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s \u2018claim of standing is based on a loss of political power, not loss of any private right, which would make the injury more concrete.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n The court emphasized that any alleged harm to Jackson \u2014 such as losing committee leadership positions or political influence \u2014 was speculative and shared by other members of his party.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if Plaintiff\u2019s asserted injury\u2014the \u2018dilut[ion]\u2019 of \u2018his influence as a Texas Congressman\u2019\u2014were judicially cognizable, it is too attenuated from California\u2019s passage of the ERRA to establish causation,\u201d the judge added. \u201cThis is far too speculative to show causation.\u201d<\/p>\n Jackson\u2019s claim hinged on a long series of hypotheticals: that California voters would pass Proposition 50, that it would add enough Democratic seats to flip control of Congress and that Jackson would lose influence as a result.<\/p>\n The judge rejected that argument outright.<\/p>\n \u201cIt follows that enjoining California\u2019s upcoming special election would not redress any injury Plaintiff may suffer,\u201d Kacsmaryk wrote. \u201cFar from being \u2018an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable,\u2019 the standing inquiry requires the plaintiff to make \u2018a factual showing of perceptible harm.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n