Supreme Court rejects GOP challenge to California’s new election map
WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California can use its new electoral map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress this fall.
The justices, without disagreement, rejected emergency calls from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who argued that the map was a racist gerrymander to benefit Latinos and not a partisan effort to favor Democrats.
Trump’s lawyers backed California Republicans and filed the following statement to the Supreme Court: “California’s recent redistricting is a unconstitutional racist gerrymander.”
They noted statements by Paul Mitchell, who is leading the effort to redraw districts, that he hoped to “support” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.
In response, State lawyers told the court The GOP’s claims challenged the public’s understanding of mid-decade redistricting and contradicted facts about the racial and ethnic makeup of districts.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed redrawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “combat Trump’s power grab in Texas.”
If Texas is going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans in order to maintain control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats, he said.
Voters approved the change in November.
Although the new map includes five more Democratic-leaning districts, state attorneys said the number with a Latino majority has not increased.
“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 predominantly Latino counties. After Proposition 50, there are the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also decreased in those 16 counties,” they wrote.
“It would be odd if California embarked on a restriction effort in the middle of the decade to benefit Latino voters and then enacted a new map that included the same number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.
Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said that the boundaries of this district were drawn for the benefit of Latinos.
The state’s lawyers said that was also wrong. “Voting-age Latino population [in District 13] “It decreased after Proposition 50 went into effect,” they said.
Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and approved the new map in a 2-1 decision.
“We find that the evidence of any racial motivations leading to redistricting is extremely weak, but the evidence of partisan motivations is very strong,” U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu wrote.
The Supreme Court has said in the past that the Constitution does not prevent state lawmakers from drawing districts for political or partisan reasons, but does prohibit doing so based on the race of voters.
In December, the court ruled in favor of Texas Republicans, overturning a 2-1 decision blocking the use of the new electoral map.
The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they were acting for partisan purposes, not to deny representation to Latino and Black voters.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. He concurred, writing, “The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map later adopted in California) was partisan advantage, pure and simple.”
California lawyers cited Alito in support of their map.
