{"id":95504,"date":"2025-12-15T17:58:07","date_gmt":"2025-12-15T17:58:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/95504\/"},"modified":"2025-12-15T17:58:07","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T17:58:07","slug":"court-battle-begins-over-republican-challenge-to-californias-prop-50","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/95504\/","title":{"rendered":"Court battle begins over Republican challenge to California&#8217;s Prop. 50"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Republicans and Democrats square off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California\u2019s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state\u2019s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.<\/p>\n<p>Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders \u2014 from GOP Assembly members to Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell \u2014 have been called to testify in a Los Angeles federal courtroom over the next few days.<\/p>\n<p>The GOP wants the three-judge panel  to temporarily block California\u2019s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.<\/p>\n<p>An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats admitted the new map would weaken Republicans\u2019 voting power in California, but argued it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore national political balance.<\/p>\n<p>Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court <a class=\"link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/18pdf\/18-422_9ol1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">decided<\/a> that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court. <\/p>\n<p>But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They <a class=\"link\" href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.cacd.994285\/gov.uscourts.cacd.994285.1.0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">argue<\/a> California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.<\/p>\n<p>The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map \u2014 a move that Newsom\u2019s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California\u2019s map.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California\u2019s maps, like Texas\u2019s, were drawn for lawful reasons,\u201d Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. \u201cThat should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations likely made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later the Supreme Court <a class=\"link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25a608_7khn.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">granted<\/a> Texas\u2019 request to pause that ruling, signaling they view the Texas case, and this one in California, as part of a national politically-motivated redistricting battle.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California),\u201d Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. <a class=\"link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25a608_7khn.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">argued<\/a>, \u201cwas partisan advantage pure and simple.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>The fact that the Supreme Court order and  Alito\u2019s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map \u2014 that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,\u201d Hasen said. \u201cTrying to get a preliminary injunction, there\u2019s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Many legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on the Texas case means California will likely keep its new map.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it\u2019s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,\u201d said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.<\/p>\n<p>Hours after Californians voted in favor of Prop. 50 on Nov. 4, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Prop. 50 for California\u2019s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others. <\/p>\n<p>The Department of Justice also filed a <a class=\"link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/media\/1417291\/dl?inline=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">complaint<\/a> in the case, arguing the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines \u201cin the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week\u2019s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell\u2019s attorneys argued he had legislative privilege.<\/p>\n<p>Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the \u201cnumber one thing\u201d he started thinking about\u201d was \u201cdrawing a replacement Latino majority\/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles\u201d and the \u201cfirst thing\u201d he and his team did was \u201creverse\u201d the California Citizens Redistricting Commission\u2019s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.<\/p>\n<p>Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhat [Mitchell] said was, essentially, \u2018I paid attention to race,\u2019\u201d Levitt said. \u201cBut there\u2019s nothing under existing law that\u2019s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Other legal experts argue that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Prop. 50.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cRegardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,\u201d said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. \u201cSo it\u2019s really the voters\u2019 intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Republicans and Democrats square off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California\u2019s Proposition&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":95505,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1052,7,9,8,4970,4761,17942,721,6780,25825,26644,1920,2211,1748,564,52497,12552],"class_list":["post-95504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-attorney","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news","tag-california-voter","tag-congressional-district","tag-gop","tag-law","tag-map","tag-mitchell","tag-new-district-map","tag-prop","tag-race","tag-republicans","tag-texas","tag-texas-case","tag-u-s-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95504","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=95504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95504\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/95505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}