Prop 50 districts illegal ‘racial gerrymanders:’ GOP lawsuit

Audio By Carbonatix

On the same day California voters chose to give back to California Democratic state lawmakers the power to redraw legislative district lines, a federal judge also tossed a lawsuit brought by a California Republican running for governor challenging the constitutionality of the Democratic redistricting gambit.

However, California Republicans are headed back to court with a new challenge to the maps pushed through by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats.

While mail-in ballots are still being counted, the majority of votes were counted on Tuesday, Nov. 4, in California's special election on Proposition 50, which asked voters to sign off on Democratic plans to redraw California's congressional district boundaries to increase Democratic seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

And unofficial totals show the measure is likely to pass overwhelmingly, with more than 63% of voters voting yes, so far.

With that approval, Democrats in Sacramento would be empowered by what is essentially a rapidly enacted amendment to the state constitution to alter the state's congressional districts in a bid to potentially eliminate Republicans from representing any of California's congressional districts.

Under the state constitution, the duty of redrawing those districts would normally be delegated at the beginning of each new decade to a nonpartisan independent redistricting commission. The commission is required to use criteria other than partisanship to create the state's congressional districts.

California's districts were most recently redrawn in 2020.

However, this summer, Democrats in California advanced Prop 50, saying they needed to redraw districts on an emergency basis in the middle of the decade to respond to a move by the state of Texas, backed by President Donald Trump, to redraw that state's U.S. House districts to favor the election of Republicans in 2026.

Newsom said Democrat-dominated California needed to respond to Republican efforts to "rig" upcoming elections.

Republicans cried foul and challenged the California redistricting attempts in court, saying Democrats were trampling the state constitution and voters' rights in a nakedly partisan power grab.

The state Supreme Court, which is also dominated by Democrats, refused to hear the challenges based on the state constitution.

After those challenges were turned away, Steve Hilton, a Republican running for governor in 2026, also filed suit in federal court, similarly accusing Democrats of running roughshod over voters' constitutional rights.

In the filing, Hilton and his legal team asserted California's mid-decade "emergency" redistricting proposal runs over Californians' constitutional rights to equal protection by redrawing congressional districts without first conducting any kind of census or similar population count to make sure the districts are drawn with equal population, as constitutionally required.

The new proposed congressional map "purports to set district boundaries in a year other than the year following the national census without conducting an update of census counts and population changes, thus creating districts that do not comply with the 'one-man - one-vote' regimen required under the United States Constitution," the lawsuit claimed.

Further, the lawsuit claimed the Democrats' proposed new California congressional map also may be racially discriminatory as it "takes no account of the breakup of communities of color and ethnicity, thus diluting the voting power of those affinity groups."

And the new proposed map "violates fundamental fairness and, by its terms, is an exercise in partisan Gerrymandering," the lawsuit stated.

While the lawsuit was filed in early September, challenging an unprecedented redistricting plan that would rewrite California's rules on an emergency basis, and which would be placed before voters in November, Hilton's lawsuit languished in court under U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden.

The state of California, for instance, did not respond to any of the claims in the lawsuit in court until late October. In that filing, the state urged the judge to deny Hilton's request for a preliminary injunction, asserting he lacked standing to bring the action because he couldn't show how he would be individually harmed by the constitutionally questionable actions.

Judge Kato then waited until Election Day, Nov. 4, to issue a ruling. In the ruling, Judge Kato declared she lacked jurisdiction entirely to hear the claims and preside over the dispute.

Kato denied Hilton's motions and dismissed his lawsuit.

Also on Nov. 4, Hilton filed a notice with the court that he was voluntarily dismissing the action.

However, on Nov. 5, California Republicans filed a new legal challenge to the partisan maps approved by California Democrats.

Specifically, the lawsuit demands their challenge be heard by a panel of three judges.

They assert the new maps were unconstitutionally drawn using race as a factor explicitly to favor Hispanics over other racial groups.

In the new action, Republicans accused Democratic state lawmakers of simply redrawing maps to create more Hispanic-majority or Hispanic-"influenced" districts, without any of the proof required under existing federal law that such race-based considerations are even needed.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Republicans are represented by attorneys Mark P. Meuser, Michael A. Columbo and Shawn Cowles, of the Dhillon Law Group, of Newport Beach.

In a social media post announcing the lawsuit, Meuser said they intend to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, and have asked the court to order the state to continue using the 2020 maps while the legal challenge continues.