![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/2249d81f8f80f1fe0eb1c2a3277db61825-newsom-50.rsquare.w400.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n Was this man disenfranchising citizens by letting them vote on a congressional map?
\n Photo: Eric Thayer\/Los Angeles Times\/Getty Images\n <\/p>\n
There\u2019s not any doubt who started the ongoing bipartisan gerrymandering competition: Donald Trump<\/a>, with his successful lobbying of Texas Republicans to conduct a rare mid-decade redistricting measure<\/a> aimed at giving the GOP up to five new House seats. And it\u2019s equally clear that in designing a new House map for California that voters approved overwhelmingly as Prop 50<\/a>, Golden State Democrats were trying to counter what Texas had done and that Trump was encouraging other Republican-controlled states to do. It was mentioned in virtually every piece of literature promoting Prop 50 and in virtually every ad.<\/p>\n So it feels a bit disingenuous that Trump\u2019s Justice Department, joining a lawsuit earlier filed by California Republicans<\/a>, is suing to invalidate Prop 50 on grounds that it\u2019s a \u201cpower grab,\u201d per the Associated Press<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cCalifornia\u2019s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,\u201d Attorney General\u00a0Pam Bondi<\/a>\u00a0said in an emailed statement. \u201cGovernor Newsom\u2019s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s an interesting characterization, since California, unlike Texas (or Missouri or Ohio, other states that have conducted off-schedule re-redistricting efforts this year), submitted its plan to the voters themselves. It\u2019s hard to claim they were \u201csilenced\u201d or that \u201cdemocratic processes\u201d were somehow mocked.<\/p>\n Below the surface, what DOJ is up to is part of a broader GOP legal offensive designed to overturn voting rights as a legitimate motive in drawing legislative maps, as Democracy Docket explains<\/a>:<\/p>\n The plaintiffs \u2014 including the California Republican Party \u2014\u00a0argued<\/a>\u00a0the state violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by drawing congressional district lines based on race \u201cto favor Hispanic voters \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe end result is a map that manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race,\u201d the complaint stated, adding: \u201c[T]he professed goal of increasing Democratic representation was subordinated to increasing Hispanic-majority districts.\u201d<\/p>\n If this sounds weird to you, it may be because it seems odd to adjudge partisan gerrymandering as entirely kosher while condemning efforts to ensure minority representation (the principal objective of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) as unconstitutional. That, however, is precisely the direction of conservative voting-rights jurisprudence these days. Under Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019s direction, the Supreme Court has steadily reduced the influence of the VRA is redistricting decisions<\/a> while rejecting any judicial role in policing blatant partisan gerrymandering<\/a>. In the case of California, the argument is that if Democrats had screwed over Republicans without trying to protect Latino voters, it would have been just fine from the perspective of constitutional law.<\/p>\n For the moment, there is no SCOTUS precedent holding that race-conscious redistricting to vindicate voting rights is unconstitutional, but one could arrive soon, whenever the Court decides Callais v. Louisiana, a pending case<\/a> in which white southern Republicans argue that VRA-based efforts to protect minority voting rights are obsolete and contrary to equal-protection guarantees. A decision in this case is expected to come down at some point between now and the end of the current SCOTUS term next June or July. If the plaintiffs win and it\u2019s early enough, it could become the basis for a massive re-redistricting push<\/a> in southern Republican-controlled states prior to the midterms that could decimate Black and Latino representation.<\/p>\n It looks like the administration is trying to get a jump on a possible decision by applying the thinking of the Callais plaintiffs to Prop 50. The suit may not make it out of the starting gate, or it could get caught up in the Callais litigation. Prop 50 architect Gavin Newsom doesn\u2019t appear to be worried<\/a>: \u201cThese losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court,\u201d a Newsom spokesperson said in a statement. Under current Supreme Court precedents, that\u2019s true, but it\u2019s a rapidly moving landscape.<\/p>\n A wrinkle in this lawsuit<\/a> is that California Republicans are being represented by the Dhillon Law Group, a firm founded by Harmeet Dhillon<\/a>, the conservative activist who now runs the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, which is in charge of the administration\u2019s involvement in the case. Dhillon has recused herself from the California dispute, but it\u2019s clear DOJ is faithfully pursuing the administration\u2019s implicit view that the only real civil-rights problem in this country involves discrimination against white Republicans.<\/p>\n Sign Up for the Intelligencer\u00a0Newsletter<\/p>\n Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.<\/p>\n Vox Media, LLC Terms and Privacy Notice<\/p>\n