
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a campaign event for Proposition 50, the state’s mid-decade redistricting measure approved by voters in November.
(Ethan Swope / Associated Press)
By
David G. SavageStaff Writer
FollowFeb. 4, 2026
11:10 AM PT
3 min
Click here to listen to this article
Share via
Close extra sharing options
Email Facebook X LinkedIn Threads Reddit WhatsAppCopy Link URL
Copied!
0:00
0:00
1x
This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.
In December, the Supreme Court ruled for Texas Republicans and allowed the state to use its new election map.
The court has ruled in the past that states may draw election districts for political or partisan reasons, but not for racial ones.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.
With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.
Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Advertisement
They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.
In response, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.
Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”
Advertisement
Will these six California GOP House members survive new districts?The passage of Proposition 50 means six GOP members of Congress are at risk of losing their seats.
Nov. 5, 2025
He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.
The voters approved the change in November.
While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.
“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.
It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.
Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.
The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.
Advertisement
Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.
“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.
Who is running for California governor in 2026? Meet the candidatesThe wide-open race to succeed Gavin Newsom as California governor has attracted a large and diverse field of candidates.
Jan. 29, 2026
In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.
In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map. The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.
“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.
California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.
More to Read
Federal court upholds California’s new congressional districts in a victory for DemocratsJan. 14, 2026
Trump lawyers urge Supreme Court to block California’s new election map while upholding Texas’Jan. 23, 2026
State GOP seeks Supreme Court injunction to block California’s new, voter-approved congressional districtsJan. 20, 2026