Yesterday Gavin Newsom and his associates met the deadline to file their oppositions in Federal Court in Los Angeles to the constitutional challenge to the partisan gerrymander of California’s 52 Congressional seats, and pulled no punches in their strategy to reverse the pressure of the lawsuit with their opening line, which quotes a communication from the Plaintiff California Republican Party (likely used in fundraising against the measure during the special election campaign) as essentially an “admission against interest.” “This special election is about one thing and one thing only: Democrats want to GUARANTEE a Democrat House majority,” citing to the CAGOP. Of course, partisan gerrymandering so far is legal, so the quote complains of a dastardly but still legal political action. It is racial gerrymandering that is not legal. Both things could be present in Proposition 50, but the measure will only be illegal if the facts show racial gerrymandering was employed as a key reason in drawing the lines. Newsom wants the three-judge panel in Los Angeles, who will hear the case at trial on December 15, to focus on the partisanship motivating Proposition 50, which is legal under current law, and not the facts the Plaintiffs will offer that race was used in drawing some or all of the districts, which is illegal.
Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review
Newsom’s opposition is 55 pages of argument and includes attached exhibits such as a report from Bernard Grofman, PhD, a Democratic expert on redistricting who teaches at U.C. Irvine, (117 pages), and Joanna Southard (84 pages). Separate oppositions were also filed yesterday by Defendant-Intervenors Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and LULAC. (The filings by the DCCC and LULAC were allowed by the court but technically, curiously so, since they have been granted Defendant-Intervenor status, but have not “answered” the Complaint yet and have won a stipulation that they don’t have to do so till next January, when much of the judicial review may actually be over in the case.)
Newsom’s brief drills into the point that “Proposition 50’s partisan aim was no secret and expected to empower Democrats to flip five California Congressional seats currently held by Republicans – exactly the result the Legislature intended.” Such a statement to the Court is as true as it is crass and from the perspective of a person who thinks electoral lines should be drawn in a fair and neutral way to advance a competitive and representative Democracy, it is a sickening admission, but a legal one.
Click here to read the full article at James V. Lacy’s Substack
It is clear, a State other then Calif. has rules for district boundaries different than Sacramento.
It is clear Il Duche Slick wants to dictate to other states what their laws should be.
It is clear his little servant who files lawsuits as if it were pouring water wants the Radical Socialist Party backing so badly he lowers himself to a lackey.
“…. a competitive and representative Democracy, it is a sickening admission, but a legal one.” Ignores a basic premise of the Constitution. This is a Republic. Not a Democracy.
I find it interesting the same arguments placed before the Nation just before the Civil War (aka War Between the State) by the current down stream party calling themselves Democrats is trying to stir discord and armed action.
Vote for them? That is your problem. It also shows how bigoted and stupid you are.