California Redistricting Controversy

LOS ANGELES, Calif.—On Monday, a three-judge panel listened to witnesses from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Republican Party, who alleged that the new congressional map was created with racial considerations in mind.

The controversy arose just a day after voters backed Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s gerrymandered map, known as Proposition 50. Subsequently, the California Republican Party initiated a lawsuit against Newsom, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, and others involved in the process. The DOJ joined the lawsuit, requesting U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee, and U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu to issue a temporary restraining order by December 19.

The hearing lasted the entire day as arguments unfolded between the Justice Department and California Republicans regarding the new congressional districts. Attorney Mark Muser, representing the plaintiffs, first called Sean Trende, a senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, to testify.

During his court testimony, Trende shared his insights on the new Congressional map, emphasizing that race significantly influenced the design of the 13th Congressional District. The new map includes parts of the Stockton area, which Trende described as an unusual “plume,” adding around 100,000 residents to the district.

Trende presented three alternative maps for the 13th District, asserting they were created without regard to race. He acknowledged that while districts could consider race under the Voting Rights Act, this particular district seemed to focus heavily on Hispanic areas, bypassing predominantly Democratic regions.

As he compared the demonstration map to the new one, Trende pointed out options that avoided what he termed “odd racial contours,” agreeing with Muser that the new district boundaries appeared to be made in a haphazard manner.

The discussions about the new map commenced in Sacramento prior to its introduction to lawmakers. Due to a tight timeline, concerns about who would redraw the congressional maps emerged in August, especially as Democratic leaders disregarded the author’s identity and failed to release a final version.

During this period, redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, known for his work with Redistricting Partners, was publicly noted as a potential author of the map. He had been hired by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to create what became Proposition 50. By September 21, Mitchell confirmed his role as the “sole” author.

Mitchell’s involvement came under scrutiny during cross-examinations, while Republican Representative David Tangipa testified that he had not been shown the maps until August 18—leaving less than a day for lawmakers to consider the bill. Tangipa, who spearheaded the campaign against Proposition 50, filed the initial lawsuit.

He recounted courtroom discussions about race’s alleged role in shaping the new maps, recalling that Mitchell emphasized the Voting Rights Act as a major factor. Tangipa also claimed that the assertion that the Congressional Elections Commission contributed to the map design was misleading and that lawmakers felt misled about its authorship.

On the opening day of proceedings, the defense team strongly refuted witness claims of racial factors influencing the district designs. While there was some acknowledgment of political motives favoring Democrats, the defense attempted to weaken the assertion that race was a key consideration.

During questioning, the defense challenged Trende’s analysis, highlighting that the 13th District included areas with a Democratic majority. Trende admitted it was “possible” that political affiliations played a role in the map’s layout. They also noted that certain district lines followed highways while others traversed less populated areas.

Defense attorneys consistently pointed out that the newly drafted map by Mitchell was based on the previous 2021 Congressional map, emphasizing that the newly established district already leans Democratic. They scrutinized Tangipa’s communications, noting that he did not mention race but instead relied on historical election data to portray the 13th District as shifting from a competitive purple to a strong blue in opposition to Proposition 50.

Before the defense’s questioning began, the Justice Department requested parts of Mitchell’s lengthy deposition be included in the evidence, citing its necessity since he wouldn’t testify. No objections arose, but questions lingered outside the courtroom regarding the reasons behind the map’s creation.

Additional plaintiffs’ witnesses included Dr. Tom Brunell from the University of Texas at Dallas and Republican Eric Chin, who had previously run for Congress in 2022 and 2024 without success. The court continued its proceedings with a second day on Tuesday, and closing arguments are expected by Wednesday.