Prop 50 Archives - California Political Review

Supreme Court declines to block California’s new mid-decade congressional map

February 6, 2026 By Devin Dwyer 4 Comments

California voters approved Proposition 50 in November.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by California Republicans to block a newly redrawn congressional map backed by Democrats and endorsed by voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The move allows the state to move forward with a map enacted by Proposition 50, approved in November, that could potentially allow Democrats to flip five seats currently held by Republicans.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

California’s mid-decade map change was backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party in response to efforts by Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw their maps — at President Donald Trump’s urging — in order to give Republicans a better chance at retaining majority control of Congress.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas. He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November,” Newsom posted on X on Wednesday after the Supreme Court’s order.

Click here to read the full article at ABC News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Congressessional races, Prop 50, SCOTUS

US Supreme Court – still waiting for an answer on Proposition 50

February 4, 2026 By James V. Lacy 1 Comment

Filing for Congressional races begins in less than a week

With February 9 being the start date for candidates to file to run for Congress in California’s Congressional districts, the U.S. Supreme Court still has not acted on the application of the Plaintiff California GOP members for a Preliminary Injunction pending an appeal of the divided Three-Judge panel’s decision in Los Angeles finding Gavin Newson’s Proposition 50 gerrymander to be legal. If the Supreme Court were convinced to grant the application, the previous Congressional District lines of the nonpartisan commission would be used in the next election, and the lines would remain unchanged from prior elections this decade. But unless that happens, the new Proposition 50 lines, which are intended to drastically reduce Republican influence in California Congressional elections for the next three cycles, will be in place as a result of their adoption by voters in the last special election.

All necessary papers have now been filed with the Supreme Court and it is simply a matter of time when the Court will act on them. Papers filed include the Plaintiff CA GOP members’ request for the injunction and accompanying briefs, the U.S. Department of Justice’s excellent brief in support of the Plaintiffs, and Friend of the Court briefs in support of the Preliminary Injunction from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (a particularly good one citing strong case law previously overlooked), the America First Policy Institute, the Center for Election Confidence, and a group of individuals suing in a separate case involving Louisiana’s congressional lines. The California GOP Plaintiffs also filed a well-done “Reply” brief.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Papers in opposition include the Response of the Newsom Defendants, and their Defendant-Intervenor allies League of United Latin American Citizens and the Democratic Congressional Committee, and a supporting Friend of the Court brief from liberal election law Professor Richard L. Hasen. (Fewer allies of the Newsom Defendants filed briefs in the Supreme Court than in the underling litigation in Los Angeles.)

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

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Prop 50, Supreme Court

U.S. Solicitor General files Opposition to Proposition 50 with U.S. Supreme Court

January 23, 2026 By James V. Lacy 1 Comment

Expedited briefing is ordered by SCOTUS on request filed by GOP Plaintiffs to set aside lower court ruling

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has just filed a 28-page brief for the Department of Justice with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of enjoining Proposition 50 pending further appeal of the decision of the Three-Judge panel in Los Angeles which gave a green light to Gavin Newsom’s gerrymander of California’s 52 Congressional Districts. The DOJ brief offers additional substance to the California GOP Plaintiffs’ arguments against Proposition 50’s constitutionality on the basis of illegal racial bias in line-drawing. The Supreme Court has established a formal docket on the Proposition 50 appeal as of today (the New York Times has previously noted the absence of a formal publicly available docket in its reporting) and Justice Kagan, who reviews Ninth Circuit appeals, has received the GOP Plaintiffs’ application for an injunction pending appeal, with the case assigned the number 25A839. Kagan has ordered a response from the Newsom Defendants by 4 p.m. Eastern time, on January 29.

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

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Gavin Newsom, Prop 50, SCOTUS

California GOP urges Supreme Court to freeze new congressional map before midterms

January 22, 2026 By Ryan Knappenberger Leave a Comment

The Republicans argue that the Democrat-friendly map used racial considerations to redraw the districts rather than politics, which the high court previously approved.

WASHINGTON (CN) — The California Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to throw out the Golden State’s new congressional map before the midterm election in November, challenging it as a racial gerrymander.

In an emergency application to Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday, the Republicans are requesting an injunction as the appeal moves forward that would temporarily reinstate the 2021 California Redistricting Committee map.

Specifically, the party is seeking action from Kagan, as the Barack Obama appointee is the justice assigned to the Ninth Circuit, by Feb. 9, the start of California’s candidate filing period.

The Golden State, led by California Governor Gavin Newsom, pushed to redraw the state’s congressional map after Texas Republicans first moved to increase the number of GOP-friendly seats at President Donald Trump’s urging.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Texas’ new map will be on the books for this year’s midterms after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority approved it last month over racial gerrymandering concerns, finding a lower court had wrongfully “inserted itself into an active primary campaign” and thrown the map out “on the even of an election.”

California’s new map — which was ultimately approved by the state’s voters in Proposition 50 — would eliminate as many as five Republican-held seats and boost Democrats efforts to retake control of the House of Representatives in November.

California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin slammed the new congressional map in an emailed statement, calling it a “backroom redraw that picks winners and losers based on race.”

“California cannot create districts by race, and the state should not be allowed to lock in districts that break federal law,” Rankin said. “Our emergency application asks the Supreme Court to put the brakes on Prop. 50 now, before the Democrats try to run the out the clock and force candidates and voters to live with unconstitutional congressional districts.”

The Republicans sued to challenge the new map on Nov. 5, 2025, the day after Proposition 50 was approved by voters.

In that case, Tangier v. Newsom , a three-judge panel of the lower court rejected the state party’s arguments in a 2-1 decision, finding no evidence of a racial gerrymander, only a partisan one.

Click here to read the full article in the Courthouse News Service

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Court, Prop 50

Newsom’s Proposition 50 gerrymander upheld by divided Federal Court

January 15, 2026 By James V. Lacy 5 Comments

Strong dissent filed. Elections to Congress in California will not be competitive with Democrats having huge advantages if ruling holds.

The Three-Judge Federal panel sitting in Los Angeles filed its decision today, after some delay, on the Plaintiffs’ and U.S. Department of Justice’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to declare Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50’s highly partisan gerrymander of California’s Congressional districts unconstitutional because it referred to racial data in creating the lines. As some observers expected, the two Biden and Obama appointed judges concluded that eliminating the nonpartisan commission’s previous lines (which have allowed for 9 Republicans to be elected to California’s 52 Congressional seats by competitive format) was legal. The ruling will likely tank any competitive Congressional elections between Republicans and Democrats for the next three election cycles. (It will mean that voters in Norco in southern California, for example, who supported Trump by 72% of the vote, will be represented by Congresswoman Norma Torres, the first Guatemalan-born Member of Congress, who voted “No” on the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act supported by Riley Gaines). This decision was made over a strong dissent by Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee, a Trump appointee and the only appellate judge on the panel.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The majority decision covered some 70-pages and offered details about how various district lines were developed. The decision established a very high bar for the showing of evidence of racially-based gerrymandering, especially in District 13 in the Stockton area where Lodi as a city is divided into three different Congressional Districts, and states that the Plaintiffs failed to establish “serious questions going to the merits” despite this obvious example of a racial chop-up. On the Federal Voting Rights Act protections advanced by the Plaintiffs and the Department of Justice, to avert racial discrimination, including disenfranchising Asian and white voters, the Court devoted only four paragraphs to their Conclusion of consideration in their decision, simply saying they rejected evidence offered by the Plaintiffs that some racial groups were favored and others diminished by Proposition 50. Which would be illegal through another lens.

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

Filed Under: Publisher's Corner by Jim Lacy, Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Gavin Newsom, Prop 50

Delay in decision points to Federal Court upholding Proposition 50 constitutionality

December 25, 2025 By James V. Lacy 1 Comment

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.

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

Filed Under: Publisher's Corner by Jim Lacy, Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Court, Prop 50

Judges Signal Possible Ruling in Favor of California’s Proposition 50 Redistricting Maps

December 23, 2025 By Jenny Huh Leave a Comment

Plaintiffs asked for an expedited order by Friday, judges say ruling will come down Monday.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A three-judge federal panel is expected to rule Monday on whether California’s temporary congressional maps approved under Proposition 50 are constitutional, following a closely watched legal challenge brought by state Republicans and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Court transcripts from the three-day hearing suggest the judges may be leaning toward upholding the voter-approved maps, which temporarily redraw California’s congressional districts ahead of future elections.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The lawsuit centers on whether Proposition 50 amounts to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Democrats and state officials argue the maps were drawn for political reasons — specifically to give Democrats a five-seat advantage in response to Texas’ mid-decade redistricting that favored Republicans by the same margin.

Republicans, however, contend race was a motivating factor in drawing the new lines, unlawfully boosting Latino and Hispanic voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Judges appeared to question whether the plaintiffs were placing too much emphasis on the intent behind the maps rather than their effect, noting that California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50 at the ballot box.

Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa, one of the plaintiffs, said voter approval does not override constitutional concerns.

“Regardless of the voters, it’s about whether it’s constitutional or not,” Tangipa said. “If the founding of these bills and race plays an element in these bills, then the judge must look at it through that lens.”

Tangipa argues that while the Voting Rights Act allows race to be considered in redistricting under certain circumstances, those provisions apply only when minority voting power is being diluted or disadvantaged. He maintains that because no voting group in California faces that disadvantage, race should not have been used as a factor in drawing the new districts.

“So, intention matters to you?” we asked Tangipa during an interview.

“I believe so,” he answered with a chuckle.

Supporters of Proposition 50 counter that the legal challenge ignores a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Texas’ redistricting maps, despite claims they diluted minority voting power.

A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom said earlier this week that the Texas ruling “should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

Click here to read the full article at ABC 7

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Legislature, Prop 50

Newsom’s mapmaker defies production of documents Order in Prop. 50 case, according to new DOJ filing.

December 21, 2025 By James V. Lacy 2 Comments

Decision of Federal Court, which was expected no later than yesterday, is still pending.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

In a new filing today by the U.S. Department of Justice, while a decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 50 is still under submission and pending before the Three-Judge panel in Los Angeles, the DOJ has informed the Court of a failure of mapmaker Paul Mitchell to comply with a December 13 court Order requiring him to disclose additional evidence “on a rolling basis” and due to the Plaintiffs, along with a “privilege log” of any documents and evidence being withheld. On December 17th, as the courtroom activities were coming to a close, Mitchell’s counsel indicated to Plaintiffs they were still “diligently working” to provide “continued volumes of production on a rolling basis,” but DOJ informed the Court in today’s filing that no other such promised documents have been received, and neither has a “privilege log” been served on them identifying withheld documents. Such documents could have a bearing on whether or not race was predominately used in drawing any or all of the 52 new Congressional districts under Proposition 50, which would make it illegal.

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

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Gavin Newsom, Prop 50

Newsom distances himself from Prop. 50 mapmaker Mitchell in latest filing; other Defendants say he can’t be forced to testify

December 15, 2025 By James Lacy Leave a Comment

Newsom says Mitchell was not a “Defendants’ agent” when somebody asked him to write the Congressional district lines the Legislature adopted for Prop. 50.

Governor Newsom does not want the Proposition 50 mapmaker, data guru Paul Mitchell, to testify next week in the hearing on whether racial data was used, illegally, to create the 52 new Congressional Districts that voters approved in last month’s special election. In a filing mandated by the Court before 5 p.m. last night, Newsom says Mitchell, who refused to testify 100 times a few days ago at his deposition on the racial data issue, should not be considered an agent of Newsom (the main proponent of Prop. 50), or the Legislature, because he did not “work for the legislature”, and is not a formal “party” to the lawsuit. Let that sink in. Newsom says Mitchell did not work for the Legislature.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

While the U.S. Department of Justice is questioning the claim of “legislative privilege” in the case and is now asking the Court to compel Mitchell’s further testimony on racial bias in the mapmaking, Newsom says he has “no power” to produce Mitchell as a witness, has none of Mitchell’s documents and evidence in his possession, and cannot waive any claim of privilege to not speak that Mitchell asserts on behalf of the Legislature, because Mitchell is on his own, with his own lawyer, and is a “non-party witness.”

Other oppositions filed late yesterday against Mitchell giving evidence on racial bias in the mapmaking were filed by the national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and LULAC. They repeat reasons to the Court why Mitchell should be allowed to gag himself and not disclose the evidence of racial number crunching behind Proposition 50, which remains a big secret, but they also expand arguments on “Mitchell really didn’t work for the Legislature” and is therefore a non-party witness who can’t be forced to testify at this stage of the litigation without being subject to, for example, formal subpoena again. This argument may have some “blue smoke” technical merit but only that, as the DOJ did in fact subpoena Mitchell a couple times for the deposition in which he refused to testify, a fact that the Newsom Defendants seem to ignore, and which will not be lost on the Court, which appears to actually want to hear what Mitchell has to say.

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

Filed Under: Publisher's Corner by Jim Lacy, Top Stories Tagged With: Gavin Newsom, James V. Lacy, mapmaker, Mitchell, Prop 50

Supreme Court declines to block California’s new mid-decade congressional map

US Supreme Court – still waiting for an answer on Proposition 50

Filing for Congressional races begins in less than a week

U.S. Solicitor General files Opposition to Proposition 50 with U.S. Supreme Court

Expedited briefing is ordered by SCOTUS on request filed by GOP Plaintiffs to set aside lower court ruling

California GOP urges Supreme Court to freeze new congressional map before midterms

Newsom’s Proposition 50 gerrymander upheld by divided Federal Court

Strong dissent filed. Elections to Congress in California will not be competitive with Democrats having huge advantages if ruling holds.

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

Newsom’s mapmaker defies production of documents Order in Prop. 50 case, according to new DOJ filing.

Decision of Federal Court, which was expected no later than yesterday, is still pending.

Newsom distances himself from Prop. 50 mapmaker Mitchell in latest filing; other Defendants say he can’t be forced to testify

Newsom says Mitchell was not a “Defendants’ agent” when somebody asked him to write the Congressional district lines the Legislature adopted for Prop. 50.

Recent Posts

Connect With CPR On Twitter