Posted on 01/25/2026 9:00:14 AM PST by MtnClimber
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave California Democrats a week to respond to the California Republican Party’s request to block the new Democrat-drawn congressional district maps from being used in November.
The request for a response, issued by Justice Elena Kagan, who is handling the emergency-injunction request for the court, surprised many court watchers.
Given that the justices allowed Texas Republicans’ gerrymandered map to stand, most thought the Supreme Court would allow the Los Angeles district court’s ruling earlier this month, validating California’s new map to stand as well. California Republicans, however, argue that the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act because at least one of the districts was written to favor Latino voters.
The California Republican Party, joined by the Justice Department, Tuesday filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court in hopes of blocking the state from using the newly approved district maps, which target four to six Republican members of Congress, in the 2026 elections.
The request for a response is just that, however. The Supreme Court could still decline to take up the case. The high court is already deliberating over a voting rights case in Louisiana, the decision in which could impact its decision on the California map. In October, arguments concluded in a landmark voting rights case, Louisiana v. Callais, that will determine whether Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, which includes a second majority black district, is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A high court decision is expected any day.
On Thursday, Mark Meuser, the election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group who filed the challenge to the maps on behalf of the California Republican Party, celebrated Kagan’s order for California Democrats to respond by 4 p.m. Jan. 29.
“Supreme Court just ordered California to respond to our Emergency Application for an Injunction,” Meuser said in an X.com post. “California must respond by Jan. 29.”
In his brief supporting California Republicans, Solicitor General John Sauer underscored their argument, writing that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
The Supreme Court has allowed gerrymandering, and in the Texas case, approved mid-decade redistricting undertaken specifically to win more seats for Republicans purely for partisan gain. It has not, however, looked favorably on redistricting efforts undertaken to consolidate racial minorities’ power.
“But unlike Texas’s map, the [California] map suffers from a fatal constitutional flaw: one of the districts (District 13) was clearly drawn ‘on the basis of race,’” Sauer wrote in his amicus brief.
The California GOP asked the Supreme Court to rule on its injunction request by Feb. 9, when congressional candidate filing in California begins. The party also asked the justices to schedule oral arguments in the underlying case.
The Supreme Court approved Texas’s map, drawn with an eye toward winning Republicans five more seats in the Lone Star state, last month. California Democrats, led by California Gov. Newsom, aim to offset that with a map that could net Democrats five additional seats.
The national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ political action committees then paid consultant Paul Mitchell to redraw the state’s 52 congressional districts. Newsom, arguing that Democrats must fight President Trump’s efforts to rewrite congressional maps in Republicans’ favor, then called a special election last November, asking voters to approve it.
Proposition 50, as the ballot initiative was called, overwhelmingly passed with 64% of the vote.
Newsom on Thursday didn’t address Kagan’s move but commented on the larger issue in a tweet posted Thursday.
“Donald Trump called up [Texas Gov.] Greg Abbott and demanded more MAGA seats in Congress,” Newsom posted on X.com from Davos, Switzerland. “He thought we’d be good little Democrats and respond with an op-ed. Not this time, buddy.”
“I’m not naïve. These guys are going to try to take me down – not just my state,” Newsom added during an interview at the glitzy international economic gathering of world leaders.
A three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected Republicans’ racial claims in their Jan. 14 order denying the state GOP’s petition.
“Challengers now seek to enjoin California’s use of the Proposition 50 Map, arguing that the predominant reason for its adoption was not politics but rather unconstitutional and unlawful racial gerrymandering,” the judges wrote.
“We have reviewed briefing from all parties, held a 3-day evidentiary hearing with 9 witnesses (including 6 experts), and reviewed a record that includes over 500 exhibits totaling thousands of pages … We find that [the] challengers have failed to show that racial gerrymandering occurred, and we conclude that there is no basis for issuing a preliminary injunction.”
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
The democRATs claim republicans are “racially gerrymandering” by undoing previous judicially mandated racial gerrymandering. They also claim when they (d’s) are doing more racial gerrymandering that it is not “racial gerrymandering”.
Exactly. The fact is California was already extremely politically gerrymandered.
Texas map was moving away from the political gerrymandering of the left.
Justification: We are the Demonic Party. We hate this country and its citizens, who have too often have voted in ways that restrict our ability to inflict as much damage as possible on them, therefore we have rewritten our districts to ensure our evil, psychotic, and suicidal politicans and policies continue unabated.
Heck, justify government by Proposition.
Since when is a ballot-harvested Greek-style Democracy a constitutionally-limited republican form of government?
The trick won’t be justifying it, it will be justifying it without telling the truth.
When it has been clearly stated that they are doing this because of Trump - that is not a justifiable reason and should be stopped ASAP
Asked Grok.
The Supreme Court is likely to deny the emergency injunction against California’s Proposition 50 congressional map, allowing it to be used for the 2026 elections given the conservative majority’s recent deference to partisan redistricting motives over claims of racial gerrymandering.
He tries to make it sound like a bad thing.
Q: If CA is so liberal, why does Deep State have to steal its elections?
Including LA’s...
Thank you! I have long thought it is anti-American.
I’d like to see Newscum brought down.
“The fact is California was already extremely politically gerrymandered.”
Been decades ago I saw a map of the LA county districts.
Convoluted beyond belief. They would connect communities miles apart to create their voting blocks.
One apparently use an alley to connect areas
Not kidding.
This is important because it can strike down the phony “victim minority” status of the entire population of Central and South America, which is what “Hispanics” are.
It is nothing more than a language cohort, a characteristic that is learned, not inherited. Thus it should not be a basis for preferences over all others, and certainly not deserving of quotas….or preferential voting districts guaranteed to elect one of them.
So Dillon group made the right argument. Could turn out to be a defining moment where Nixon’s mistake gets reversed.
It sounds like in the legal game, they have to argue that it is racial gerrymandering. Political gerrymandering is apparently OK.
Of the billions of possible maps, how many are constitutional in a given state?
Hmm...a rough estimate of the number of possible maps:
a = Number of census blocks
b = Number of congressional districts.
c = a/b
d = (c!)^n
They have to have not just equal population but be contiguous...that would weed out quite a few maps.
Another constraint is...are there any voting districts that contain more than one census block?
CA has a = ~500k census blocks.
b = 52 seats?
c ~= 10k blocks per seat.
Preliminary answer: a!/d
Which is quite a large number.
First of all, CA mandates independent commission for redistricting.
TX does not.
So Ca is in violation of constitution, TX not!
Here will be their justification:
"Beucase I WANNNT IIIIT!!!!" (accompanied by stamping feet)
Many things in California suffers from a fatal constitutional flaws.
Deportation..............................................................................................................................................................................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.