{"id":59265,"date":"2025-11-18T22:32:10","date_gmt":"2025-11-18T22:32:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/59265\/"},"modified":"2025-11-18T22:32:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-18T22:32:10","slug":"republicans-are-suing-over-a-pro-democrat-gerrymander-they-have-a-huge-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/59265\/","title":{"rendered":"Republicans are suing over a pro-Democrat gerrymander. They have a huge problem."},"content":{"rendered":"

Sign up for the Slatest<\/a> to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.<\/p>\n

California Republicans<\/a>, now joined<\/a> by the Trump administration\u2019s Department of Justice, have sued California in federal court to stop implementation of Proposition 50, a voter-passed ballot measure that creates a Democratic gerrymander<\/a> of the state\u2019s congressional districts, adding up to five more Democratic seats. The lawsuit argues that the Legislature had an unconstitutional race-focused intent on the state\u2019s Latino voters when it passed the maps. In fact, whatever the Legislature intended should be irrelevant to the Republicans\u2019 claim, and they likely will lose because California voters were acting with a predominantly political, not racial, intent.<\/p>\n

If Republicans lose the Prop 50 lawsuit and the United States Supreme Court does not interfere with a new federal district court ruling<\/a> putting Texas\u2019 new gerrymander on hold for 2026, Democrats could have an advantage going into 2026, even as the Supreme Court contemplates even more changes in redistricting rules in its pending case out of Louisiana.<\/p>\n

The Republicans\u2019 main argument in Tangipa v. Newsom<\/a> is that \u201cthe California Legislature violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution when it drew new congressional district lines based on race, specifically to favor Hispanic voters, without cause or evidence to justify it.\u201d Plaintiffs in particular argue that 16 California congressional districts are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n

To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff first must show that when a state drew district lines it made race the predominant factor in doing so, and second that no compelling reason justified it. When a state makes political considerations, traditional districting criteria, or something else the predominant factor in drawing the lines rather than race, a racial gerrymandering claim fails on the first prong.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has decided many racial gerrymandering cases that turn on the question of whether race or politics predominated in drawing district lines. Indeed, that is one of the issues in a high-profile case currently at the Supreme Court, Louisiana v. Callais<\/a>. In that case, as one of us explained<\/a> over the summer, the Supreme Court is trying to determine whether race or party predominated when Louisiana drew a second congressional district where the state\u2019s Black voters could elect their candidate of choice. On reargument in October, the court also considered, under the second prong, whether any remedial racial predominance to fix a racial gerrymander could be justified by compliance with the Voting Rights Act\u2014or, more ominously, whether the Voting Rights Act itself is unconstitutional. That case remains pending, and assuming the court in Callais continues to recognize racial gerrymandering as unconstitutional, it should not have a direct effect on the California case.<\/p>\n

The Republicans\u2019 complaint in California will likely focus on evidence regarding the supposed intent of members of the state Legislature and particularly the intent of Paul Mitchell, a redistricting consultant who drew the new lines for the Legislature. Republicans argue that the evidence shows that racial considerations predominated in drawing those lines. It\u2019s a tough argument to make, because the Legislature seemed motivated to do a Democratic partisan gerrymander to counter Texas\u2019 partisan gerrymander of congressional maps favoring Republicans. Any racial considerations were simply to make sure that the new proposed maps did not violate the Voting Rights Act, as it currently stands.<\/p>\n

But there is a far more serious threat to Republicans\u2019 argument about racial predominance\u2014they may be focusing on the wrong actors\u2019 intent. To understand this argument, we need to look at the kind of law Proposition 50 was. Back in 2008 and 2010, California voters adopted plans through voter initiatives to have redistricting done by independent commissions, not the Legislature. Under the California Constitution, the Legislature could not simply pass its own law reversing the voter-approved use of commissions for the state\u2019s congressional districts. Instead, the Legislature had to authorize a ballot measure to be approved or rejected by voters suspending use of the commission-drawn lines for Congress. Proposition 50 asked voters to approve the new maps that Mitchell drew and the Legislature proposed, maps that would only come into effect if California voters approved. This is key: Because California voters\u2019 were the ultimate decision-makers, we should be asking in any racial gerrymandering case if California voters, not the state Legislature, had a predominantly racial focus.<\/p>\n

So how to prove the intent of the voters? After all, voters don\u2019t meet like a legislature in a great hall and debate the finer points of legislation. Under California law, courts look first to the text of a ballot measure. When that text does not unambiguously disclose the electorate\u2019s intent, courts next look to official ballot materials<\/a> to clarify the electorate\u2019s understanding of the measure\u2019s impact. These materials can include the official summaries of the impact, which the California attorney general is required to prepare<\/a>, or text included in the \u201cvoter information guide,\u201d<\/a> also known as the \u201cballot pamphlet\u201d mailed to every registered voter in California. Indeed, the California Supreme Court has held<\/a> in the analogous context of interpreting the meaning of a voter initiative that the \u201copinion of drafters or legislators who sponsor an initiative is not relevant since such opinion does not represent the intent of the electorate and we cannot say with assurance that the voters were aware of the drafters\u2019 intent.\u201d As another California appeals court wrote<\/a> in 2005, the only materials for courts to look at when it comes to voter intent are those ballot materials.<\/p>\n

With respect to Proposition 50, the California ballot materials show exclusively partisan intentions. Beginning with the quick-reference guide at the very start of the 2025 ballot pamphlet<\/a>, voters were met with a set of explicitly partisan arguments. The quick-reference guide provided an argument in support of Proposition 50 on the grounds that it would \u201ccounter Donald Trump\u2019s scheme to rig next year\u2019s congressional election.\u201d Meanwhile, the quick-reference guide describes Proposition 50 as follows: \u201cAUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO\u00a0CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS\u2019 PARTISAN REDISTRICTING.\u201d It also includes an argument against adoption on the grounds that Proposition 50 would remove \u201cprotections that ban maps designed to favor political parties.\u201d Neither argument identifies nor even alludes to racial considerations. Instead, concerns over partisan advantage predominate. Likewise, the attorney general\u2019s summary<\/a> (included in the ballot pamphlet) describes Proposition 50 as a response to \u201cTexas\u2019 mid-decade partisan redistricting.\u201d (Importantly, nothing in the Proposition requires Texas\u2019 gerrymander to be upheld for Proposition 50 to remain in effect.)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n Richard L. Hasen
\n Gavin Newsom Just Proved It: Voters Want Democrats to Fight Fire With Fire
\n Read More\n <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Further down, the ballot pamphlet also contains an analysis by the California Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office<\/a>, a nonpartisan body responsible for, among other things, analyzing the impact of ballot measures. The Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office\u2019s analysis of Proposition 50<\/a> addresses the background events motivating Proposition 50, describing the unusual nature of mid-decade redistricting and explaining the impact of Proposition 50 as adopting new maps drawn in compliance with \u201cfederal law,\u201d but without the limitations otherwise imposed by California law on the redistricting commission. The analysis notes projected fiscal impacts, and the proposition\u2019s call for federal redistricting reform but does not comment on the potential partisan impacts of Proposition 50\u2019s proposed maps; the analysis likewise does not mention race once.<\/p>\n

Finally, the ballot pamphlet contains two pages (approximately 1,473 words) of double-column arguments for and against adoption of Proposition 50. In favor of adoption, a statement submitted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats describes the purpose of Proposition 50 as ensuring Californians \u201caren\u2019t silenced by partisan gerrymandering in other states\u201d and calls on voters to \u201cSTOP TRUMP FROM RIGGING THE 2026 ELECTION.\u201d Newsom\u2019s statement does not mention race, aside from a passing reference to California\u2019s \u201cdiverse communities,\u201d which he claims will be fairly represented by Proposition 50. Likewise, the argument against Proposition 50 contained in the ballot pamphlet urges voters to reject the ballot measure not because it will constitute a racial gerrymander, but rather because it would put \u201cpoliticians back in charge of drawing their own districts, or those of their friends.\u201d In other words, voters should oppose the measure because it would enable partisan gerrymandering. Among the arguments and rebuttals included in the ballot pamphlet, the sole appeal to racial considerations comes from the rebuttal to Newsom\u2019s argument in favor of the measure, which claims that the redistricting commission should not be suspended because its maps have led to \u201cBetter Representation,\u201d shown by the fact that \u201cAsian representation tripled, Black representation nearly doubled, and Latino seats grew by 8%\u201d since the commission was established.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a Surprise Controversial Character in the New Epstein Emails. I Talked to Him.
\n <\/a><\/p>\n


\n This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only<\/p>\n

Why It Matters That Trump\u2019s DOJ Got Caught by a Judge Blatantly Lying\u2014Again
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

She Was Such a Good Bank Robber Even the FBI Admired Her. There\u2019s Still One Thing About Her That No One Can Figure Out.
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I Need to Talk About the Weirdest Part of Epstein\u2019s Emails\u2014Besides, Uh, the Obvious
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

In the face of the overwhelming partisan appeals contained in each element of the ballot pamphlet, it will be difficult for a court to conclude that California voters had racial, rather than partisan, intentions in adopting Proposition 50. This conclusion should not come as a surprise to those who followed the campaign surrounding Proposition 50, which featured extensive<\/a> partisan<\/a> appeals<\/a> for<\/a> and against<\/a> the ballot measure.<\/p>\n

Whether or not California voters were justified in \u201cfighting fire with fire\u201d<\/a> by engaging in a Democratic partisan gerrymander to counter Republicans\u2019 partisan gerrymander in Texas\u2014and if the Texas plan is blocked and the California plan upheld, Donald Trump will have made things far worse for Republicans\u2014the point here is that it was California voters who made the ultimate call. And the evidence leaves no doubt they were acting as naked partisans, not motivated at all by the racial considerations necessary to make out a claim for racial gerrymandering as the Supreme Court has explained it.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":59266,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7,9,8,536,4059,7635,36103,564,1710,6095],"class_list":["post-59265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news","tag-donald-trump","tag-gerrymandering","tag-judiciary","tag-jurisprudence","tag-texas","tag-voting","tag-voting-rights"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59265\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/59266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}