Judge Criticizes Democrats Over California Redistricting Map in Dissenting Opinion

In a significant legal development, a federal judge has criticized California’s voter-approved congressional redistricting plan, alleging it constituted “racial gerrymandering” despite the map being upheld by a judicial panel in a 2-1 vote.

Judge Kenneth Lee issued a scathing dissent, claiming California “sullied its hands with this sordid business” when redrawing districts that could potentially add five more Democratic House seats. Lee specifically pointed to Paul Mitchell, the mapmaker behind the redistricting plan, as having a “smoking gun” that suggests race played a predominant role in drawing at least one district.

“In embarking on a mid-decade redistricting plan to create more Democratic-friendly districts, California relied on race to create at least one Latino-majority congressional district,” Lee wrote in his dissent. He further noted that Mitchell had allegedly boasted to political allies about ensuring “Latino districts” but refused to appear before the judicial panel.

The court’s majority, however, rejected Republicans’ claims that the map, approved as part of Proposition 50, violated the Voting Rights Act by favoring Hispanic and Latino voters. This decision allows California to implement the new congressional boundaries, which could significantly alter the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The California Republican Party has announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency injunction. California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin expressed support for Judge Lee’s dissent, stating, “The well-reasoned dissenting opinion better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court.”

Proposition 50 emerged as a strategic countermove initiated by California Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic leadership in response to similar redistricting efforts in Texas. The unusual mid-decade redistricting plan specifically targeted five Republican strongholds in California, breaking with the traditional practice of redrawing congressional maps once every decade following the U.S. Census.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement following the court’s decision. “California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 – to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas – and that is exactly what this court concluded.”

The case highlights the increasingly partisan nature of redistricting battles across the country. Typically, congressional maps remain stable for a decade between census counts, but both California and Texas have pursued mid-cycle redistricting in what appears to be an escalating political strategy to gain partisan advantage in the House of Representatives.

The legal challenge centers on whether race was improperly used as a predominant factor in drawing district lines, which would violate constitutional protections. While using demographic information to ensure minority communities have fair representation is permitted under certain circumstances, the Supreme Court has established that race cannot be the primary factor in determining district boundaries.

This California redistricting dispute represents the latest chapter in a nationwide struggle over congressional maps, with potential national implications for control of the House. With Republicans currently holding a narrow majority, changes to multiple districts in California could significantly impact which party controls the chamber after the next election.

The case also underscores the complex intersection of race and politics in American electoral systems. As both parties seek advantages through redistricting, courts increasingly find themselves arbitrating disputes over whether new maps represent legitimate partisan strategy or unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

As the matter heads to the Supreme Court, the outcome could establish important precedents for future redistricting efforts and further clarify the boundaries between permissible political considerations and impermissible racial considerations in drawing congressional districts.