On Monday, a federal court in Los Angeles opened a hearing that could decide whether California’s newly approved congressional map will be used in the 2026 elections. The map, passed by voters in November as Proposition 50, is designed to help Democrats flip up to five House seats.
The Court Hearing
The hearing set the stage for a high-stakes legal battle between the Trump administration and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run. A three-judge panel is asked to grant a temporary restraining order blocking the new map by Dec. 19, the date candidates can take the first official steps to run in the 2026 elections when GOP control of the House will be in play.
The hearing also highlighted a statement from Newsom’s spokesperson Brandon Richards, who said: “In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Richards said.
Parties and Allegations
The Justice Department, joined by the California Republican Party, accuses California of gerrymandering its map in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Hispanic voters. Republicans want the court to prohibit California from using the new map. Voters approved the map for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. State Democrats say they’re confident the lawsuit will fail.
The Map’s Design
The map was drawn by Paul Mitchell, a redistricting consultant who worked for Democrats. The Justice Department alleges that Mitchell and state leaders admitted they redrew some districts to have a Latino majority. The hearing focused on the 13th district in the Central Valley, touching on Hispanic voting-age population, census blocks and software used to manage the data.
Evidence Presented
Elections analyst Sean Trende, called by the plaintiffs, told the judges that “Race was the predominant interest in drawing the district.” He pointed to a thumb-like appendage jutting out of the northern end of the new district, which he described as a precise knife cut to capture certain voters. Defense attorneys questioned whether political shifts in the region could have dictated how lines were drawn rather than racial considerations. At one point Trende acknowledged that the thumb-like bump in the district boundary was not as extreme as congressional maps seen in other states.
The lawsuit also states: “Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 – the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit said.
Legal Context
The lawsuit cites a news release from state Democrats that says the new map “retains and expands Voting Rights Act districts that empower Latino voters” while making no changes to Black majority districts in the Oakland and Los Angeles areas. The federal Voting Rights Act, passed in the 1960s, sets rules for drawing districts to ensure minority groups have adequate political power. The lawsuit also cites a Cal Poly Pomona and Caltech study that concludes the new map would increase Latino voting power.
National Stakes
The fight over California’s map mirrors similar disputes in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, where new district lines could provide a partisan advantage. The Supreme Court ruled earlier this month to allow Texas to use its new map for the 2026 election. The Justice Department has only sued California. The case pits the Trump administration against Gov. Newsom ahead of 2026 elections, a key year for House control.
Key Takeaways
- California’s new congressional map, approved by voters, is challenged over alleged racial gerrymandering, pitting Trump against Gov. Newsom ahead 2026 elections.
- The lawsuit alleges that race was the predominant interest in drawing the 13th district, citing a thumb-like appendage.
- The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling allowing Texas to use its map sets a precedent for this case.
The hearing continues to unfold as the court weighs the evidence. The outcome will shape not only California’s political landscape but also the balance of power in Congress for the remainder of President Trump’s term.
