Federal Court Weighs Fate of California's Prop 50 Redistricting Maps

Map on left shows current Calif. districts and right shows those proposed by Prop 50

Introduction

As the clock ticks toward the 2026 midterm elections, a high-stakes federal lawsuit challenging California's newly approved congressional redistricting maps under Proposition 50 has wrapped up its expedited hearing, leaving the state's political landscape hanging in the balance. The three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California concluded arguments on Wednesday, December 17, with no immediate ruling, but experts anticipate a decision soon to avoid disrupting candidate filings.

Proposition 50, dubbed the "Election Rigging Response Act," was passed by voters in a special election on November 4, 2025, with about 64% approval. The measure amends the California Constitution to temporarily shift redistricting authority from the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission—established in 2008—to the Democratic-controlled state legislature for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections. After the 2030 census, control reverts to the commission. Proponents, led by Governor Gavin Newsom, framed it as a necessary countermeasure to partisan gerrymandering in Republican-led states like Texas, where mid-decade map changes are projected to add up to five GOP seats in the U.S. House.

The new maps, drafted via Assembly Bill 604 by redistricting consultant Paul Mitchell and enacted shortly after the vote, aim to flip as many as five Republican-held districts to favor Democrats while bolstering protections for minority voters, particularly Latinos and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders. Key changes include reshaping districts in the Central Valley and Los Angeles areas to create more Latino-influence seats, adhering to the Voting Rights Act. Democrats argue this levels the national playing field, potentially shifting House control amid a closely divided Congress.

Political Consultant Paul Mitchel - credited with drawing the map for Prop 50 - photo KCRA Ch 3 News.

However, Republicans and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly filed suit, alleging the maps amount to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs claim race was the predominant factor in drawing lines, using Latino demographics as a proxy for partisan gains without adequate justification. "This isn't about fairness; it's a blatant power grab disguised as equity," said California GOP Chair Jessica Millan Patterson in a statement following the hearing.

The Three-Day Hearing: Key Moments and Testimonies

The expedited bench trial, presided over by a three-judge panel—Judge Josephine L. Staton (Obama appointee), Judge Wesley L. Hsu (Biden appointee), and Judge Kenneth K. Lee (Trump appointee)—began on December 15 in downtown Los Angeles. It featured intense scrutiny of the map-drawing process, with plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction to revert to the 2021 commission-drawn maps before candidate filing deadlines, which could start as early as December 19.

Plaintiffs, including Republican voters, candidates like Assemblymember David Tangipa, and the DOJ, presented evidence highlighting irregular district shapes, such as a "snaking" extension in Congressional District 13 (encompassing parts of the Central Valley and Stockton) that allegedly prioritizes Hispanic-heavy areas over other factors. Expert witness Sean Trende, a senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, testified that alternative maps could achieve similar partisan outcomes without relying on race. They also pointed to Mitchell's public statements to interest groups about enhancing Latino representation, arguing these reveal racial predominance.

A contentious issue arose during Mitchell's December 10 deposition, where he invoked legislative privilege over 100 times, refusing to detail internal processes. Plaintiffs urged the court to draw an adverse inference from this, calling it "outrageous." Mitchell did not testify live, as a subpoena was quashed under federal rules limiting witness travel.

Defendants, including Newsom, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, and intervenors like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, countered that the maps are a permissible partisan gerrymander, not racial. They emphasized voter intent, noting the ballot measure's explicit framing as a response to Republican actions in Texas, and argued racial considerations were secondary to compactness, community integrity, and VRA compliance. "Voters knew what they were approving—a strategic pushback against national gerrymandering," defense attorneys stated in closing arguments.

Judicial interactions revealed a divided panel. Judge Staton focused on voter approval overriding potential flaws, appearing skeptical of the racial claims. Judge Hsu questioned the DOJ's selective enforcement, noting no similar challenge to Texas's maps. Judge Lee, however, pressed the defense on Mitchell's evasions and suggested his statements could prove predominance.

Closing arguments on December 17 lasted into the morning, with both sides citing recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents, including allowances for mid-decade redistricting in Texas. Observers note the court's composition—two Democratic appointees and one Republican—may tilt toward upholding the maps, but Lee's pointed questions could sway modifications.

Broader Implications and Next Steps

This case is part of a nationwide redistricting frenzy, with similar battles in states like New York, Virginia, Ohio, and Texas. If the injunction is granted, California would stick with its current 52-seat map, potentially costing Democrats gains in a bid to retake the House. An upholding could embolden other blue states to follow suit.

A ruling is expected imminently, with appeals likely to escalate to the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court under expedited rules for election cases. Political analysts predict the maps' survival, given SCOTUS's recent deference to state election processes, but the racial angle and numerous public statements by redistricting consultant Paul Mitchell indicating that race was a factor, in the drafting of the bill, adds uncertainty.

As California braces for potential upheaval, the outcome could reshape not just the state's delegation but the balance of power in Washington ahead of 2026.

Sources

1. GOP sues to block California's new voting maps - CalMatters - https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/12/proposition-50-republican-lawsuit-hearing/

2. DOJ and California go to court over new congressional map ... - PBS - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/doj-and-california-go-to-court-over-new-congressional-map-designed-to-favor-democrats

3. Future of California's Prop 50 remains unclear, as three-day hearing ... - https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/future-of-californias-prop-50-remains-unclear-as-three-day-hearing-wraps-up/103-b531b2ab-af96-4743-93fa-a7991cee0857

4. Republicans ask federal court to overturn California's new Prop 50 ... - https://www.redding.com/story/news/nation/california/2025/12/16/will-california-prop-50-be-overturned/87798881007/

5. Closing arguments made in congressional redistricting suit | California - https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_a63301ab-e736-4a26-b3e2-f91a40be67b6.html

6. California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional ... - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_50%2C_Use_of_Legislative_Congressional_Redistricting_Map_Amendment_%282025%29

7. [PDF] Text of Proposition 50 - https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-50-text.pdf

8. Judges Hear Arguments in LA Over Lawsuit Concerning Passage of ... - https://pasadenanow.com/main/judges-hear-arguments-in-la-over-lawsuit-concerning-passage-of-proposition-50

9. Democrats' Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of ... - https://thefulcrum.us/governance-legislation/democrats-redistricting-update-dec-2025