DOJ Sues California Over Prop 50’s ‘Power Grab’

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, announced they have joined a lawsuit against California’s redistricting ballot initiative, Proposition 50, which overwhelmingly passed in a special election last week. The lawsuit names Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber as defendants (see below).

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50,” said Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond.”

In a social media post, AG Bondi states, “Newsom should be concerned about keeping Californians safe and shutting down Antifa violence, not rigging his state for political gain.”

In an emailed statement to the Associated Press, Bondi continued, ““California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process. Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

Newsom spokesperson Brandon Richards responded in a statement, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”

Today @TheJusticeDept sued @CAgovernor over his brazen Proposition 50 redistricting power grab.

Newsom should be concerned about keeping Californians safe and shutting down Antifa violence, not rigging his state for political gain.https://t.co/Vi2WAS7VX4

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) November 13, 2025

The lawsuit cites, “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 AP reports: “The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Hispanic voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.”

This week, The Globe reported that the United States Supreme Court could rain on Newsom’s Prop 50 parade by finding that redistricting by race is unconstitutional, in that race-based redistricting could violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

A case currently with the U.S. Supreme Court about racial gerrymandering could nullify California’s just-passed Proposition 50, the mid-decade redistricting scheme Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrats cooked up ahead of the 2026 midterm elections to secure more Democrat seats in Congress by redrawing district maps, or “gerrymandering” numerous California Republicans out of their congressional districts.

The Supreme Court will decide in Louisiana v. Callais whether the state’s intentional consideration of race to create these voting districts violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court could also invalidate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and require race-neutral maps.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark U.S. federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting, aiming to protect the voting rights of all citizens, particularly racial minorities.

The high court appears ready to strike down Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering – a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Elections Law attorney Mark Meuser explained in detail that “The Supreme Court could soon change how every congressional map in America is drawn, including California:”

“Callais v. Louisiana, a case that could reshape redistricting for decades.

Here’s what’s at stake: for years, federal courts have interpreted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to require states to gerrymander congressional districts so minority groups are virtually guaranteed the ability to elect a representative of their same race. Callais challenges that approach, arguing that the current interpretation of the VRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it forces states to make race the predominant factor in drawing district lines.

Democratic-aligned advocacy groups have weaponized this reading of the VRA to carve out safe Democratic seats. Instead of drawing compact districts that follow cities, counties, and communities of interest, states are pressured to create bizarre, snake-like districts designed to hit racial targets. The result is a distorted Congress.

In 2024, Donald Trump won the presidential election decisively, yet Republicans hold only a razor-thin margin in the House. That mismatch is not by chance. When districts are drawn to guarantee that one party always wins, it shifts power away from the people and toward special interests. It lets political insiders and activist groups pick the politicians who govern us, rather than letting voters choose their representatives.

If the Court agrees with Callais, the decision could dramatically limit the use of race in redistricting nationwide. That means the gerrymandered maps Gavin Newsom is pushing with Prop 50 could be ruled unconstitutional. This is one of the most important redistricting cases in decades. The outcome could restore fairness, compactness, and accountability to how congressional districts are drawn.“

The DOJ’s lawsuit uses the public statements made by California Democrats as the basis for their complaint:

In the press, California’s legislators and governor sold a plan to promote the interests of Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. But amongst themselves and on the debate floor, the focus was not partisanship, but race.

“[T]he first thing” that map drawer Paul Mitchell “did in drawing the new map”— the “number one thing that [he] first started thinking about”—was to create a new “majority/minority Latino district.” And legislators focused—not on the purported vote dilution of Democrats elsewhere across the country—but on the supposed dilution of the voting power of racial groups in other states. They feared that a “Latino voice in Texas is worth one third of the representation as a white voice.” That Texas would “slid[e] back” to the days of “Black Codes and Jim Crow.” And that Texas legislators would “silence the voices of Latino voters.” Proposition 50 would serve as a “shield” against “racist maps,” they told each other, so that minorities in California could “stand up and be counted.” The end result is a map that manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.

Our Constitution does not tolerate this racial gerrymander.

Should the Supreme Court find that states have gerrymandered districts based on race, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause, an estimated 30 states may be impacted and forced to redistrict ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, in a outcome that could lead to Republicans drawing 19 more seats and Democrats losing up to a dozen local seats, primarily in the South. A decision by the Supreme Court is expected as early as next Spring.