Delay in decision points to Federal Court upholding Proposition 50 constitutionality

Three-Judge Federal court hearing the challenge to Newsom’s Congressional gerrymander was expected to act by December 19, still has not filed an Opinion Order

Though the initial time-line was never mandated, the Federal Court in Los Angeles reviewing the constitutional challenge to the Congressional District revisions under Proposition 50 was expected to act last week, by December 19. The court held two days of evidentiary hearings on December 15 and 16 and closed its courtroom proceedings after receiving arguments from both sides last Wednesday, December 17, after which it took the matter “under submission” for the preparation of what was expected to be a quick Order deciding the matter.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Both sides in the matter had reminded the Court that December 19 was an important day. And on more than one occasion the Court chided the parties, especially the Newsom Defendants, for foot-dragging in the case, noting that time was of the essence. This is because for the 2026 Primary Election in California, the formal process for prospective candidates for Congress began on December 19. Referred to as the “Signatures-in-Lieu of Filing Fee Period,” from December 19 to February 4, 2026, prospective Congressional candidates are given an early window to collect signatures to reduce of eliminate their filing fees for office. Later in the year, from February 9 to March 6, 2026, the candidates actually declare their candidacies with county elections officials.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The Plaintiffs are asking for a Preliminary Injunction (“PI”) in the case, declaring Prop. 50 unconstitutional and allowing the state and county officials to begin processing next year’s Congressional elections in California pursuant to the lines drawn on 2021 by the Independent Commission that Prop. 50 replaces. Generally speaking, a PI is an extraordinary type of relief, issued before a full-blown trial, when a court determines it is highly likely the Plaintiffs will win the case at trial. A PI is usually issued quickly after the hearing, because the idea is this is temporary relief that is immediately required.

The delay of the Court in issuing an Order and not making a decision for more than a week after the close of courtroom proceedings gives some indication that at least a majority of the Court (2 of the judges are Democrat appointments, one is a Trump appointment) don’t feel that the situation is now so urgent as to step in with a quick decision to stop county election officials from processing prospective candidates under the Proposition 50 lines. In fact, if the Court were to issue a PI now, the Order would be more disruptive to the local processes than it would have been if issued last week, because of confusion and the “do-over” it would create of the proper residency of in-lieu signers, based on differences in Congressional lines.

Click here to read the full article in James V. Lacy’s Substack