A federal court on Wednesday rejected Republicans’ claim that California’s new congressional maps were unconstitutional, upholding a voter-approved plan intended to benefit Democrats in this year’s midterm elections.
Two judges in a three-judge panel in Los Angeles sided with Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats in Congress, who argued that the maps were drawn purely to give their party an advantage, in reaction to a similar gerrymander by Texas Republicans. The ruling shot down arguments by the California Republican Party and the Trump administration that the maps amounted to a racial gerrymander that focused on favoring Latinos over other groups of voters.
Republicans are expected to appeal the ruling and ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the matter. However, the nation’s highest court has already indicated that it is unlikely to block California’s maps.
The Supreme Court in December upheld the Texas maps that Republicans drew and rejected Democratic claims that districts in that state had been gerrymandered based on race. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a concurring opinion, wrote that it was “indisputable that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
The Supreme Court previously determined that courts could not rule on claims of partisan gerrymandering. So Republicans who oppose the California maps face the same challenge as Democrats who opposed the maps in Texas: to prove that race, not partisanship, was the predominant factor in crafting the new district lines.
In the California lawsuit, Republicans pointed to statements made by Democratic lawmakers and a map-drawing consultant that their plan preserved several districts that were created by an independent commission to empower voters of color. Such districts are allowed under the Voting Rights Act, but the lawsuit contended that Democrats did not follow the necessary procedure for drawing them.
Democrats argued that the Republican claims of racial gerrymandering were flimsy. They noted that there were no additional districts where Latino voters comprised a majority, according to an independent analysis. They cited numerous instances in which Mr. Newsom and other Democrats told the public that the new maps were necessary to counter Republican gains in Texas.
District Judge Josephine Staton, an appointee of President Barack Obama, and District Judge Wesley Hsu, an appointee of President Joseph R. Biden Jr., sided with California in the case. Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, an appointee of President Trump, dissented.
The court’s ruling is the latest development in a wild redistricting war that has swept the nation since President Trump leaned on Texas Republicans over the summer to draw a new map that could help the party maintain its slim control of Congress next year. California Democrats responded by crafting Proposition 50 to create new congressional districts for elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030 that aim to flip five seats now held by Republicans.
Voters approved it overwhelmingly in November. The next day, Republicans filed a lawsuit against Mr. Newsom and asked the court to block the new map from taking effect.
The federal Department of Justice joined the lawsuit, which was originally filed by the California Republican Party, a Republican assemblyman and several Republican voters. It is being funded by the National Republican Congressional Committee.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee joined the suit on Mr. Newsom’s side.
Laurel Rosenhall is a Sacramento-based reporter covering California politics and government for The Times.
The post Federal Judges Uphold California’s New Congressional Maps appeared first on New York Times.
