Federal judges allow California to use new US House map ahead of 2026 election

California Court Upholds New Congressional Map Favoring Democrats

California can proceed with its voter-approved redistricting plan designed to boost Democratic representation in the U.S. House, a federal three-judge panel ruled Wednesday. In a 2-1 decision, the Los Angeles-based court rejected attempts by state Republicans and the U.S. Justice Department to block the new map that could help Democrats flip up to five House seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

The ruling represents a significant victory for Democrats in the ongoing redistricting battle that could determine control of the House of Representatives. The map was overwhelmingly approved by California voters through Proposition 50 in November’s election, receiving substantial backing from Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement following the decision.

The legal challenge had accused California of unconstitutionally using race as a factor when drawing district boundaries, claiming the map was designed to favor Hispanic voters. However, the court majority determined the redistricting was driven by partisan goals rather than racial considerations.

“After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that it was exactly as one would think: it was partisan,” the judges wrote in their majority opinion.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Lee, appointed by former President Donald Trump, dissented, arguing that at least one district was drawn using race as a factor “to curry favor with Latino groups and voters.”

The California redistricting effort is widely viewed as a direct response to similar actions in Texas, where a Republican-backed plan could help the GOP secure five additional House seats. This tit-for-tat maneuvering between America’s two most populous states highlights the intensifying battle for congressional control through redistricting.

Several Republican-led states including Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio have also adopted new district lines that could provide partisan advantages. In contrast, Republican-run Utah was recently ordered by a judge to implement a map creating a Democratic-leaning district. Notably, despite multiple states redrawing boundaries, the Justice Department has only pursued legal action against California.

California Republicans have vowed to appeal Wednesday’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. “The well reasoned dissenting opinion better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court,” said Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party.

The ruling aligns with a 2019 Supreme Court decision that partisan gerrymandering is a political question outside federal court jurisdiction. In December, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to use its new map for the 2026 election because it was drawn with partisan goals. In that case, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion that California’s map was similarly approved for political advantage, potentially signaling how the Court might view a California appeal.

The mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps represents an unusual departure from standard practice. Typically, states revise district boundaries only once per decade following the U.S. Census. Some states, including California, use independent commissions to draw maps, while others, like Texas, allow elected officials to control the process.

Republicans currently hold just nine of California’s 52 congressional seats. The new map could significantly alter the national political landscape, as House Democrats need to gain only a handful of seats in 2026 to reclaim control of the chamber. The current House composition stands at 218 Republicans to 213 Democrats.

If Democrats succeed in flipping the House, they could potentially block key elements of Trump’s agenda during the remainder of his term and initiate congressional investigations into his administration. The California redistricting ruling thus carries implications far beyond state lines, potentially influencing the balance of power in Washington for years to come.