[ad_1]
After a panel of federal judges in Texas this week struck down that state’s recently redrawn congressional maps, voters in California might be wondering if that means the Golden State will halt its own mid-decade redistricting plan.
After all, when Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats began talking about redistricting early on, they framed it as a counter to the gerrymandering in Texas that was meant to benefit Republicans there. In selling the idea to voters that California should adopt new maps that benefit Democrats, Newsom said, just before he signed a bill to call the special election, “We’re responding (to) what occurred in Texas; we’re neutralizing what occurred.”
However, now that Texas may not be able to move forward with its redistricting plan — the recent decision could still be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court — some voters may wonder if California ought to proceed with its new maps.
Newsom’s office confirmed that California can still go forward with its plan because it is not contingent on what happens in any other state.
That’s because on the day the California Legislature passed bills to call for a special election and put new maps before voters, language that said California’s new maps would be implemented “only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map” was removed. At the time, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said that wording was removed because Texas had, by then, voted to redistrict.
“Because Texas Republicans have voted,” spokesperson Nick Miller said in an August email, “the original trigger language in our measure is no longer necessary.”
“To make sure the measure is clear to California voters when they have the final say, it has been removed,” he added.
Some voters may still be surprised, though, thinking California would only move forward with redistricting if Texas does. The title of the ballot measure had stated that Proposition 50 “authorizes temporary changes to congressional district maps in response to Texas’ partisan redistricting.”
“There is more than one reason that Californians may feel misled, including the reason for (our) lawsuit,” Mike Columbo, the lead attorney in a case challenging the state’s new congressional maps, said in an email.
That lawsuit — brought by California Republicans, and which the U.S. Department of Justice later joined — alleged California’s maps are unconstitutional because districts were racially gerrymandered. A spokesperson for Newsom previously expressed confidence that the state will prevail in court.
Asked if California still plans to redistrict in light of this week’s ruling on the Texas maps, Newsom’s office responded with a statement from the governor: President Donald Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott “played with fire, got burned — and democracy won. This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”
To be clear: Texas has filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 2-1 decision by the federal district court judges. Should the nation’s highest court ultimately side with Texas, the maps that Abbott is pushing for could be implemented after all.
Meanwhile, irrespective of the Texas case, there’s still the matter of the Republicans’ lawsuit challenging California’s maps.
With that case still pending, voters and candidates alike may be asking what this means for California and the 2026 midterm elections. When will they know what the districts look like?
After all, a key date for candidates is coming up: Starting Dec. 19, candidates who don’t want to pay the filing fee to run for a House seat can begin gathering voter signatures to have the fee waived.
Knowing by then what the boundaries are for the district they’re running in is important, said Columbo.
“It will create a problem for voters and those candidates if the districts change after that date,” he said.
His team is seeking a preliminary injunction and requesting that California’s current congressional maps — used in the 2024 elections — remain in place until a final decision is rendered about the legality of those established by Proposition 50.
A three-judge panel will hear the matter on Dec. 3, and attorneys for the plaintiffs have asked for a decision on the preliminary injunction by Dec. 5 so that if the losing side appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court would have two weeks to weigh in before Dec. 19, Columbo said.
“The reason we are asking for such a quick decision is to avoid the confusion and disruption that would occur if we don’t have a decision by Dec. 19 and then later, the court determines that the maps are unconstitutional,” he said.
Once it’s established which maps candidates will run on, the lawsuit challenging the Proposition 50 maps would proceed as normal through the court process, Columbo said.
Such a plan is not unheard of.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School who has taught courses on constitutional law and election law, said in these types of cases, a court generally will indicate which map shall be used for the next election while a case is still being heard.
That happened, she said, with an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case that centers around Louisiana’s congressional maps.
“People need to know which lines are in place before they have to declare their candidacy,” Levinson said. “Judges will have to give some indication about whether or not the new lines can be used. That will obviously have huge implications for who runs, in which district and what the contest looks like.”
“We just need to know which lines to use,” she added. “But the case doesn’t need to have a final resolution” yet.
In the meantime, candidates have already started announcing their plans to run in districts based on the Proposition 50 maps. With California’s June 2 primary election just over six months away, a number of candidates have started fundraising and seeking endorsements.
[ad_2]
Linh Tat
Source link
