California Redistricting Scheme: Emergency Application to SCOTUS

The Dhillon Law Group  on behalf of the California Republican Party, and other plaintiffs, filed an emergency application at the U.S. Supreme Court today seeking to block California from using the congressional district lines enacted through Proposition 50 for the 2026 election cycle.

Attorney Mark Meuser notified the Globe today that they filed the emergency application today with the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block California’s redistricting scheme while the appeal plays out.

The Applicants are David Tangipa, Eric Ching, Saul Ayon, Peter Hernandez, Roxanne Hoge, Joel Guiterrez Campos, Solomon Verduzco, Paul Ramirez, Jayne Ortiz-Wilson, Vernon Costa, Rachel Gunther, Doug Buchanan, Sayrs Morris, Mike Netter, Christina Raughton, Kristi Hays, James Reid, Michael Tardif, Alex Galicia, and the California Republican Party.

Important in this case: If the Court grants relief, California would use the prior Citizens Redistricting Commission map for the 2026 Elections instead of the mid-decade, hastily-drawn maps.

On his X page, Meuser explained:

Today, we filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging California’s new congressional map enacted through Proposition 50. This filing asks the Court to temporarily block California from using the Proposition 50 map in the 2026 elections while the case is on appeal. If the Court grants relief, California would instead use the prior Citizens Redistricting Commission map for the 2026 Elections. Why does this matter? The Constitution is clear: states may not sort voters into districts based on race. Yet the record in this case contains unusually direct evidence that race was used in drawing multiple districts. The mapmaker who drew the map publicly stated that districts were designed to “bolster” Latino voting strength and to hit specific racial targets. Legislators echoed those goals, and internal materials presented race as a factor in drawing lines. Despite that evidence, a divided three-judge court denied an injunction using a novel theory: that courts should focus on the intent of millions of voters who approved the map at the ballot box, rather than the intent of the mapmakers and legislators who actually drew and enacted it. Our Emergency Application explains why that approach cannot be squared with decades of Supreme Court precedent. Constitutional violations do not become lawful simply because they are put to a popular vote. We also explain why California cannot satisfy strict scrutiny even if race was used. The State made no showing that these race-based districts were required by the Voting Rights Act. In fact, the evidence shows that minority-preferred candidates routinely win in California and that no racial bloc voting exists that would justify sorting voters by race. Timing is critical. Candidate filing for the 2026 elections begins on February 9th. Once candidates and voters are forced to operate under unconstitutional districts, the harm cannot be undone. That is why we are seeking narrow, temporary relief now, to preserve the status quo while the appeal proceeds.

The opening paragraphs of the injunction request also lays out the case:

The Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate of equality prohibits a State from “separating its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race” absent compelling and “sufficient justification.” Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 291 (2017). Even when a State claims that it is engaged in partisan rather than racial gerrymandering, it may not use race as a “proxy” for politics. Id. at 291 n.1. Regrettably, California has done precisely that.

Under the guise of partisan line-drawing, California expressly used race as the “predominant factor” in placing “a significant number of voters within or without” Congressional District 13. Id. at 291. If left uncorrected, this pernicious and unconstitutional use of race will irreparably harm Applicants and the public. Applicants therefore respectfully request an injunction pending appeal precluding California from conducting any congressional election under the map enacted through Proposition 50 (“Proposition 50 Map”) and requiring it to use the prior map adopted in 2021 by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.

The Globe reported, In August, California’s legislative Democrats kicked the voter approved independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission to the curb for the next few elections, when they introduced their package of three bills, SB 280, AB 604, and ACA 8, to redraw California’s congressional districts mid-decade, described in detail by California Globe contributor Chris Micheli here.

As Assemblyman Carl DeMaio said in a press conference the same day, the maps were drawn by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), “which is not even a registered lobbyist,” DeMaio noted. “How much money was paid to Paul Mitchell, who boasted that he had a team of 8 people” working with him. Mitchell is drawing the new districts for the governor, the Globe reported.

In an effort to influence the midterm elections, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta announced their intentions to blow up California’s independent redistricting commission, effectively tampering with the state’s electoral maps mid-decade… because TRUMP.

As Steve Hilton filed in his legal action to the United States District Court Central District of California to stop California’s unconstitutional redistricting plan in September, AB 604/ACA 8 breaks up communities of color and ethnicity.