Sponsor MessageBecome a KQED sponsor
upper waypoint

Federal Judges Uphold California’s New Congressional Maps Favoring Democrats

Save ArticleSave Article
Failed to save article

Please try again

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a "Yes On Prop 50" volunteer event at the LA Convention Center on Nov. 1, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. A three-judge panel in Los Angeles ruled that the districts redrawn by Proposition 50 are legal, denying a challenge by California Republicans and the Trump administration. (Jill Connelly/Getty Images)

A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the new congressional maps created by California voters in the fall are legal and should remain in place, handing a win to state Democrats who hope the new districts will swing five congressional seats for their party next year.

The ruling denies a request by California Republicans and the Trump administration for the federal court in Los Angeles to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the maps created by Proposition 50.

In the 117-page ruling, the federal judges rejected GOP arguments that the new maps amounted to racial gerrymandering, which has been prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court. The panel ruled 2-1, with the two Democratic appointees ruling for California and Judge Kenneth K. Lee, who was appointed by President Trump, dissenting.

Sponsored

In the opinion, Judge Josephine Staton wrote that the panel’s conclusion “probably seems obvious to anyone who followed the news” about Proposition 50 last year. She noted that during the campaign, no one ever described the new maps as racially motivated — including the Republican plaintiffs.

“No one on either side of that debate characterized the map as a racial gerrymander,” the opinion states, noting that the California Republican Party called it a “political power grab to help Democrats retake Congress and impeach Trump,” and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi deemed  it a “redistricting power grab” for political gain.”

The judges also rejected Republican arguments that the voters’ intent did not matter. The majority wrote that voters clearly were endorsing the argument that both sides were making: that this was a partisan power grab, aimed at giving Democrats a leg up in the midterm elections and counteracting what GOP-led states were doing with their own districts.

Democrats celebrated the ruling.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed. California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 — to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas — and that is exactly what this court concluded,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

The California Republican Party said they will appeal the decision and ask the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency injunction blocking the maps. The question must be decided soon: Congressional candidates have until March 6 to file papers to run for office in the June primary.

“Although the majority of the three-judge panel did not side with our challenge to the Prop 50 map, we appreciate the thoughtful and timely work of all three judges,” said state party chair Corrin Rankin. “The well reasoned dissenting opinion better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court….We look forward to continuing this fight in the courts.”

Newsom pushed lawmakers to put Proposition 50 on a special statewide ballot after Trump set off a mid-decade redistricting scramble by demanding Texas redraw its maps to benefit Republicans.

In his dissenting opinion, Lee wrote that race “likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell,” referring to a Democratic consultant who helped draw the new lines.

Lee argued that Mitchell publicly “boasted” about boosting Latino voting power in the 13th Congressional District in the Central Valley, and that voter intent should not be the only basis for the court’s decision.

“To be sure, California’s main goal was to add more Democratic congressional seats. But that larger political gerrymandering plan does not allow California to smuggle in racially gerrymandered seats,” said Lee, who wrote that Democrats likely wanted to create a Latino majority district “as part of a racial spoils system to award a key constituency that may be drifting away from the Democratic party.”

lower waypoint
next waypoint
Player sponsored by