California under pressure — again — as partisan redistricting wars escalate

May 8, 2026 By Ana Ceballos Leave a Comment
  • The new maps could already lead to Democrats being elected in 48 of the California’s 52 congressional districts.
  • Some Democrats warn that further partisan redistricting could backfire on the party.

WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, Democrats in Washington had a message: The rules of redistricting have changed, and California — the nation’s biggest blue bastion — may have a further role to play.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should “play by the same set of rules” as Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed to fight in “the Deep South and all over the country.” And Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, was blunt: “I’ll take 52 seats from California, I sure would. And 17 seats from Illinois.”

The calls for action came as Republican governors in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississipppi and Tennessee called special legislative sessions to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Florida has also approved new maps that could give the GOP four more seats in the House, and President Trump urged other Republican states to follow suit.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The Republican response has intensified the pressure on Democrats to act, including those in California — where the ruling could upend not just congressional maps, but also legislative and local races.

“We can’t allow this national gerrymandering effort of Republicans to go unanswered,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach). “If Republicans go for it, I think we have to leave all options on the table.”

For now, California’s response is far from settled.

The chair of the California Democratic Party said there are no current plans to redraw maps — just months after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a mid-decade redistricting backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The Democratic consultant who drew the state’s current congressional district boundaries says an all-blue map, while possible to create, would probably hurt Democrats more than help them in the long run. And some of the state’s congressional Democrats are worried the impulse to match Republican partisan efforts would be bad for the American electorate.

“Rather than accelerating a race to the bottom, the next step is to dial it down because you can reach a point of no return,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), one of the state’s most prominent Black lawmakers. “And that’s where we’re headed.”

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

US Supreme Court Issues Huge Ruling On Voting Rights Act; Et Tu California?

April 30, 2026 By Katy Grimes Leave a Comment

What about California’s racial gerrymander with Supreme Court declaring Louisiana congressional map an ‘unconstitutional racial gerrymander?’

The United States Supreme Court just ruled Wednesday that drawing Congressional districts based on race under the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, 6-3.

The Reader’s Digest condensed version: Democrats can no longer rig maps based on race.

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq., was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, Roberts, Barrett and Gorsuch.

Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.

While the Court did not strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act entirely, it specified that drawing districts solely based on race is unconstitutional.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The Court dealt a blow to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, siding with Louisiana Republicans and President Donald Trump’s administration by blocking an electoral map that created a second majority-Black congressional district,” the Daily Caller reported.

Louisiana v. Callais was centered on whether Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, which had added a second majority-Black district, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq., was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it.

Louisiana must not only redraw its congressional map, this decision could lead to racially drawn districts in all states being thrown out.

What does this mean for California’s mid-decade racial redistricting scheme?

Louisiana v. Callais was a test of race-based redistricting under the Constitution. This SCOTUS ruling against Louisiana could undermine and/or invite challenges to California’s redistricting efforts given that they involve racial considerations. What will this mean to Gov. Newsom’s intentional creation of majority-minority districts or race-predominant maps? Perhaps this decision could tie Californoa’s redistricting to broader lawsuits alleging violations of the 15th Amendment and Voting Rights Act in California.

In an effort to influence the 2026 midterm elections, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta announced their intentions to blow up California’s independent redistricting commission, effectively tampering with the state’s electoral maps mid-decade… because TRUMP.

In August, California’s legislative Democrats kicked the voter approved independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission to the curb for the next few elections, when they introduced their package of three bills, SB 280, AB 604, and ACA 8, to redraw California’s congressional districts mid-decade, described in detail by California Globe contributor Chris Micheli here, the Globe reported.

The maps were drawn by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), “which is not even a registered lobbyist,” Assemblyman Carl DeMaio noted. “How much money was paid to Paul Mitchell, who boasted that he had a team of eight people” working with him. Mitchell is drawing the new districts for the governor, the Globe reported.

In January, Attorney Mark Meuser filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block California’s redistricting scheme while the appeal plays out. He explained:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Race for redrawn California’s 40th Congressional District is starting to take shape

March 1, 2026 By Kaitlyn Schallhorn Leave a Comment

Momentum, money and ‘politically homeless’ voters are vital in a race that could determine which party controls the House after the midterms

With all the changes California’s mid-cycle redistricting maneuvers brought to congressional districts this year, one nestled in Orange County and the Inland Empire is considered still to be a safe seat for Republicans to control.

The question for California’s 40th Congressional District, though, is: Which Republican?

But first, there is the June primary, and the race for the 40th Congressional District has attracted a bevy of candidates, including both incumbent Reps. Ken Calvert and Young Kim.

And as the period for those to file to run for the seat nears a close, the race is beginning to take shape and it’s peppered with question marks.

There are enough “politically homeless” voters who might have an outsized say in determining who battles it out for the 40th Congressional District in the fall, political experts say.

With about two months to go until registered California voters begin to receive their ballots in the mail, the contest for the 40th is projected to be “fairly safe” for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Should this congressional district have existed in 2024, President Donald Trump would have won it by 12 points, according to the Cook Political Report’s election analysis.

More than 40% of registered voters in the district are registered Republicans, whereas 31% are registered Democrats and 21% are no party preference, according to the latest data from the California secretary of state.

That’s enough Republican voters, perhaps, to propel both Calvert and Kim through the primary.

“The focus has been on Calvert and Kim for good reason,” said Dan Schnur, who teaches political messaging at USC and UC Berkeley.

“Unless one or the other breaks through in a very dominant fashion, and it looks unlikely at this point, it’s going to be two Republicans who make it through the primary,” Schnur said.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

High court ruling from 2006 could clear way for redistricting in Texas, California

November 30, 2025 By Bob Egelko 1 Comment

In 2006, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned ruling with little explanation, allowed Arizona to enforce strict new voter identification requirements in an upcoming election on the grounds that it was too late for courts to intervene.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Now that ruling, in the Purcell case, seems likely to allow Texas and other Republican-led states to gain House seats in next year’s election by redrawing their districts. By the same standard, California’s Proposition 50, the pro-Democratic redesign of House districts approved by the voters on Nov. 4, will most likely take effect in 2026.

That doesn’t mean the new maps will ultimately be upheld by the courts. A federal court panel in Texas, led by an appointee of President Donald Trump, ruled 2-1 on Nov. 18 that the state’s redistricting, designed to gain five House seats for Republicans, was illegally crafted to weaken the voting power of racial minorities. Republican officials, in a suit filed Nov. 5 in Los Angeles, contended one new Prop 50 district was illegally designed to favor a Latino candidate.

But under what has become known as the “Purcell principle,” courts must refrain from judging or overturning a state’s voting rules shortly before an election.

“Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase,” the Supreme Court said in its 2006 ruling, with no apparent dissents. 

The ruling allowed Arizona to enforce a 2004 ballot measure requiring voters to present a passport or other proof of citizenship when they register, and to show identification when they vote in person on Election Day. In a suit by Indian tribes and community organizations, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the state law five weeks before the 2006 election, but the Supreme Court set that ruling aside without deciding whether it violated voting rights.

Since then, the court has relied on Purcell to reject lower-court rulings against state election laws in the weeks or months before an election, usually laws that restricted voter registration or participation. 

For example, a ruling in 2020 set aside an order by a federal judge in Wisconsin giving election officials additional time to count absentee ballots, which were increasingly being cast during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, the Supreme Court allowed Alabama to use new election maps in an upcoming primary that packed most of the state’s Black voters into a single House district — although the court, when it later considered the legality of the maps, ruled in 2023 that they violated the Voting Rights Act.

That approach endangers voting rights, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Berkeley and a liberal legal scholar. He noted that Texas lawmakers had adopted their new House maps on Oct. 25 and that the federal court rushed to release its ruling on Nov. 18. That was less than three weeks before the filing deadline for candidates in the primary election that is scheduled in March.

“There’s no way that a challenge could have been brought sooner,” Chemerinsky said in an interview. “If the court says nonetheless that Purcell precludes this, it sends such a clear message to state legislators: You can do anything you want within a certain amount of time before the election.”

Click here to read the full article in the SF Chronicle

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

California Supreme Court denies GOP request to block redistricting proposal

August 30, 2025 By Daniel Macht and Ashley Zavala 3 Comments

SAN FRANCISCO — California’s Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an emergency petition by state Republican lawmakers and the Dhillon Law Group to block a special election on redistricting in the fall.

The lawsuit, which was filed Monday, claimed that California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature violated the state constitution and laws around redistricting by preparing congressional maps that they do not have the power to draw.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“The petition for writ of mandate and application for stay are denied,” the court’s docket entry stated.

Proposition 50 will ask voters this November to change congressional maps for the next three congressional elections and support independent redistricting nationwide. California Democrats have vowed to “fight fire with fire” in response to other congressional maps being redrawn for Republican advantage in Texas.

“48 hours later, this case has already been rejected,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “Keep em coming, @GOP. We’ll keep winning.”

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their website.

The Republican plaintiffs in the case, Sens. Suzette Martinez Valladares and Tony Strickland and Assemblymembers Tri Ta and Kathryn Sanchez criticized the court in a response.

“The Supreme Court’s abdication in its responsibility to be a checks and balance on the other branches of the government, let alone deny the opportunity to even hear the arguments being made, undermines voter confidence and sets a terrifying precedent that the governor and a willing legislature can blatantly disregard and violate the constitution at will, without the fear of any accountability or punishment,” their statement said. “We are watching in real time the destruction of law-and-order, and of our republic at the hands of a democratic governor, democratic super-majority legislature and Supreme Court. This is likely only a sad preview of what is to come if Prop 50 passes. We will continue to fight on behalf of Californians seeking an honest and accountable government.”

The California Supreme Court previously rejected a request from Republicans to freeze the state’s redistricting efforts before it was approved by lawmakers.

Click here to read the full article in KCRA

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Breaking: California Republicans, Citizens File Supreme Court Petition to Block Newsom-Backed Redistricting Measure from November Ballot

August 27, 2025 By Katy Grimes 1 Comment

Lawyers argue Legislature violated constitution bypassing independent redistricting commission, and asks voters to vote on two separate issues

California Republicans announced at a press conference Monday they have filed an emergency Writ of Mandate with the California Supreme Court to stop the special election currently scheduled for November 4th because the California Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom violated the California Constitution in putting this ballot initative on the ballot.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Last Thursday, the legislature passed the 3-measure package on Congressional redistricting: Senate Bill 280, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, and Assembly Bill 604.

Prior to passage of the three measures, Republican lawmakers and the Dhillon Law Group filed an emergency petition filed with the California Supreme Court to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders from rushing through the unconstitutional redistricting plan without the 30–day public review period required by the California Constitution, the Globe reported.

The California Supreme Court denied Republicans’ injunction request to halt Governor Gavin Newsom’s and Democrats’ redistricting scheme late Wednesday.

Attorney Michael A. Columbo with the Dhillon Law Group was joined Monday by two of the the petition’s plaintiffs: Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) and Assemblyman Tri Ta (R-Orange County) at the press conference, along with Corrin Rankin, the Chairwoman of the California Republican Party.

Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares and Assemblyman Carl DeMaio are the other elected legislators plaintiffs.

The people already decided that politicians shouldn’t draw their own districts, Attorney Columbo said at the press conference. “Not only does Respondent’s redistricting gambit violate every one of these core constitutional restrictions, but they also rammed this complex scheme comprising hundreds of pages of data through the Legislature in just 4 days, in violation of the Constitution’s Article IV, § 8(a) requirement for 30 days’ public notice of new legislation,” Columbo said.

enator Strickland addressed the single-subject rule violation: “Based on the two different questions in the bill. I’d vote differently on each,” he said, showing the obvious conflict. “The time to decide is election time, not rigging elections.”

He also posited that the “temporary” suspension of the independent California Redistricting Commission won’t be temporary at all “once politicians get that power.”

“We already have the Gold Standard [with the independent California Redistricting Commission]: hundreds of hearings over months, with the goal to keep cities and counties together.”

Assemblyman Tri Ta tied the issue to his own immigrant story: “I fled a country that never had free elections to come here for freedom. What happened last week on the Assembly floor was outrageous and a complete violation of the California Constitution. And now, on top of that, we are being forced to spend more than $200 million on a special election when Californians are asking for relief on affordability, crime, and homelessness.”

“This is not a Republican or Democrat issue,” California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said, emphasizing the nonpartisan nature of the lawsuit. “It’s about good governance. Californians overwhelmingly voted for transparency and an independent commission to stop politicians from drawing their own districts. What we see now are backroom deals made without voters’ knowledge, and that is wrong. Californians deserve better than to have their rights trampled in the dark.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

Millions of dollars flow into redistricting battle on the November ballot

August 24, 2025 By Seema Mehta 2 Comments
  • The same day the Legislature voted to call a special election to redraw California’s congressional districts and boost the number of Democrats in Congress, millions of dollars began pouring into campaigns supporting and opposing the move.
  • Voters will cast ballots on new congressional districts in November.

Millions of dollars began flowing into campaigns supporting and opposing an effort to redraw California’s congressional districts on the November ballot, notably $10 million from independent redistricting champion Charles Munger Jr.

The checks, reported Friday in state campaign finance disclosures, were made on Thursday, the day the state Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom called a special election to replace the congressional districts drawn by an independent commission in 2021 with new districts that would boost the number of Democrats elected to Congress in next year’s midterm election.

The move is an effort by California Democrats to counter Texas Republicans’ and President Trump’s efforts to boost the number of GOP members.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Munger, a GOP donor and the son of a billionaire who was Warren Buffett’s right-hand man, bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure that created independent congressional redistricting in California. He donated $10 million to the “No on Prop. 50 – Protect Voters First” campaign,” which opposes the proposed redistricting.

“Charles Munger Jr. is making good on his promise to defend the reforms he passed,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, which opposes the ballot measure and includes Munger.

A spokesperson for the campaign supporting the redrawing of congressional boundaries accused Munger

of trying to boost the GOP under the guise of supporting independent redistricting.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Obama endorses redrawing California congressional districts, court rejects GOP challenge

August 22, 2025 By Seema Mehta 3 Comments
  • Former President Obama, who opposes partisan gerrymandering, endorsed California Democrats’ efforts to redraw the state’s congressional districts to counter GOP efforts to boost their ranks in Congress.
  • His endorsements comes shortly before California lawmakers are largely expected to vote to place the matter on the ballot in a special election in November.

Former President Obama endorsed California Democrats’ plans to redraw congressional districts if Texas or another Republican-led state does so to increase the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of Congress after next year’s midterm election.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Obama said that while he opposes partisan gerrymandering, Republicans in Texas acting at President Trump’s behest have forced Democrats’ hand.

If Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy,” he said at a fundraiser Tuesday in Martha’s Vineyard that was first reported by the Associated Press on Wednesday.

“I wanted just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas, and take it to the voters and see what happens,” Obama said, “… but we cannot unilaterally allow one of the two major parties to rig the game. And California is one of the states that has the capacity to offset a large state like Texas.”

Redistricting typically only occurs once a decade, after the census, to account for population shifts. In 2010, Californians voted to create an independent redistricting commission to end partisan gerrymandering. California’s 52 congressional districts were last redrawn in 2021.

Earlier this summer, Trump urged Texas leaders to redraw its congressional boundaries to increase the number of Republicans in Congress. Led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Democrats responded and proposed redrawing the state’s district lines and putting the matter before voters in a special election in November.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

This Republican lawmaker has served CA for decades. Newsom’s plan could end his dominance.

August 16, 2025 By Deborah Brennan 3 Comments

Welcome to CalMatters, the only nonprofit newsroom devoted solely to covering issues that affect all Californians. Sign up for The Inland Empire newsletter to receive a weekly look at how people in the I.E. are living, learning and working.

Last year Republican Rep. Ken Calvert, the longest-serving Republican of California’s delegation, narrowly held his seat against a former federal prosecutor, Democrat Will Rollins.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

This year he faces eight challengers, and the possibility that his area, California District 41, could be redrawn to give Democratic candidates the advantage.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing what lawmakers are calling an emergency redistricting plan for California, aimed at turning at least five red congressional seats blue. Calvert’s Inland Empire district is one of those targets.

Newsom floated his plan after Texas began redrawing its political lines to eliminate five Democratic seats. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is pushing the proposal with the backing of President Donald Trump, who wants to bolster the GOP’s House majority in next year’s midterm election by skewing voting districts in Republicans’ favor.

“Donald Trump called up Governor Abbott for one simple reason: to rig the 2026 elections,” Newsom said in a statement, vowing to “fight fire with fire.”

But he faces some hurdles. Unlike Texas, where the legislature sets political boundaries, California relies on an independent citizens’ commission to draw voting lines. California voters approved the redistricting commission for state offices in 2008, empowering the bipartisan body to set boundaries based on geographic areas and “communities of interest,” which can include cultural and economic characteristics. In 2010, voters added congressional districts to the process.

To circumvent that, Newsom would ask California voters to approve new boundaries that would remain in place through 2030. He plans to release proposed voting maps next week. Then the state legislature has to authorize a ballot measure by Aug. 22 to place the redistricting plan on the November ballot.

Last week Newsom hosted Texas lawmakers who fled the state to delay a vote on its redistricting effort. And on Monday he sent Trump a letter outlining California’s counteroffensive. “You are playing with fire, threatening to destabilize democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make,” Newsom wrote.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Gavin Newsom Sends Strongly Worded Letter to President Trump re: Redistricting

August 14, 2025 By Katy Grimes 2 Comments

Newsom is playing a stupid game of legal chicken with the President

“If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,” California Governor Gavin Newsom says in a strongly worded letter threatening the President of the United States.

Whoa. Not a strongly worded letter. Them’s fighting words.

Newsom claims Trump is “playing with fire,” an odd choice of words given the 13 fires currently burning in Gov. Newsom’s California.

Newsom claims Trump is “risking the destabilization of democracy.”

“Pot, meet kettle.” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s attempt to perform redistricting mid-decade is a violation of the California Constitution.

In 2008 the people took the redistricting power away from the politicians by voting for an independent citizens’ commission to draw the electoral districts – every 10 years and only attached to the once-a-decade U.S. Census. That is what California’s redistricting law says.

In an effort to influence the midterm elections, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta announced intentions to blow up California’s independent redistricting commission, effectively tampering with the state’s electoral maps mid-decade… because TRUMP.

The maps are embedded below.

Newsom made this announcement as Texas continues with their current legal plans for a mid-decade redistricting.

Gov. Newsom plans to redraw electoral district boundaries for the state’s members of the U.S. House of Representatives. However, California is currently very gerrymandered already, even with the state’s supposed “fair-representation” California Citizens Redistricting Commission known as “We Draw The Lines.”

California Republicans are still underrepresented in Congress, thanks to many years of one-party rule by redistricting.

California Republicans have 40% of the vote, but only 6% representation of the state’s 52 elected members of Congress, with 43 Democrats and 9 Republicans.

Newsom wants to take away another 6 seats taking Republican representation down to 3%.

His plan is pure politics, of course benefitting him. He’s running for President and this is a move to signal Democrats that he’s fighting Donald Trump on their behalf. However, even if Gavin Newsom succeeds in removing 6 more California Republican members of Congress, there is a bigger problem.

Just as with California, blue states are already so heavily gerrymandered there really isn’t much gerrymandering left to benefit Democrats.

As Charlie Kirk posted on X:

What Democrats are really afraid of: 1) Redoing the Census and properly counting state populations 2) Removing illegals from the count If it’s war he wants, it’s war he’ll get.

California Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Hilton announced last week that if Gavin Newsom and Rob Bonta move ahead with their redistricting plan, he will sue them in federal court. The law is on Hilton’s side, and not on Gavin Newsom’s.

He said that Gov. Newsom and AG Bonta know it is unconstitutional to seize redistricting power from the people and give it back to politicians – for one or two election cycles.

Article XXI of the California Constitution says:

In the year following the year in which the national census is taken under the direction of Congress at the beginning of each decade, the Citizens Redistricting Commission described in Section 2 shall adjust the boundary lines of the congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts (also known as “redistricting”) in conformance with the following standards and process set forth in Section 2.[1

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,