The US Supreme Court has lit up California’s pro-Democrat redistricting voting map
Listen to this article
Average 5 minutes
The audio version of this article was created by AI-based technology. It can be mispronounced. We are working with our partners to continuously review and improve the results.
The US Supreme Court allowed California on Wednesday to use a new electoral map designed to give Democrats five more congressional seats, improving the party’s chances of regaining control of the US House of Representatives from President Donald Trump’s Republicans in the mid-term elections in November.
Judges have rejected a request by the California Republican Party to block the California map, which was approved by voters last year as a counterweight to a similar effort in Texas aimed at giving Republicans five seats in the US House. The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 majority, in December allowed Texas to use its redrawn map on this year’s ballot.
The one-sentence court order did not provide an explanation, as is common for discretionary actions in the event of an emergency. No justice publicly challenged the decision.
The California Republican Party and other challengers say the state has illegally used race to redraw the boundaries of US House districts.
Redrawing the boundaries of constituencies in a state is a process called realignment. The California dispute represents another case in the ongoing nationwide battle to prevent Trump from last year campaigning for Republican lawmakers to redraw the state’s federal maps, starting in Texas, to help secure a majority in the US House in the midterm elections.
The Supreme Court ruled in December to allow Texas to proceed with its new map.
Republicans currently hold small majorities in both chambers of Congress. Relinquishing control of the House or Senate to Democrats in the November 2026 elections would jeopardize Trump’s legislative agenda and open the door to a Democratic-led congressional investigation targeting the president.
The new Texas map could flip up to five Democratic-held House seats to Republicans. Democratic California is responding to Texas’ redistricting move by launching its own effort that could flip the state’s five Republican-held districts to Democrats.
California voters last November approved a ballot measure to allow lawmakers to implement the new map. California, the most populous US state, has 52 seats in the House. Texas, the second most populous state, has 38.
After Texas sparked controversy by gaining five more House seats by redrawing its federal maps, California responded with one of its own. Andrew Chang breaks down how gerrymandering works and how it could affect the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. Photos provided by The Canadian Press, Reuters and Getty Images
Constitutional concerns
Republican plaintiffs, joined by the Trump administration, sued in federal court in Los Angeles to block the new map, saying it uses “race as a priority” to favor Latino voters, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution for equal protection under the law, the prohibition of the 15th Amendment on Voting Rights Act and racial discrimination in federal Rights.
That federal court on January 14 refused to block the map.
“Because we find that the evidence for any racially motivated driving ban is too weak, while the supporting evidence is overwhelming, the challengers are not entitled to relief on any of their claims,” the court said in a 2-1 decision.
Republican plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that state officials tried to “strengthen Latino support for the Democratic Party” through “dangerous and unconstitutional racial manipulation.” In a separate filing, the Trump administration said, “California’s redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial bias.”
Al Muratsuchi, a member of the Japanese American assembly in California, says that the goal of Donald Trump’s attack on immigrants goes beyond deportation to create an “atmosphere of fear,” especially after incidents such as US Senator Alex Padilla and the deployment of the National Guard in Democratic cities.
States typically create new maps every ten years to reflect new census data, though recent rounds of redistricting have been motivated for partisan gain, a practice also known as partisan gerrymandering.
The Supreme Court in 2019 removed a key barrier against the practice, which critics say warps democracy, in a ruling that said such actions could not be challenged in federal courts.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office in the filing urged the justices to be neutral.
“The obvious reason the Republican Party is the plaintiff here, and the reason the current administration stepped in to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas to defend its new map, is that Republicans want to keep their majority in the House for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” the California letter said.
The court should not “interfere in the political fray, giving one political party a huge advantage by ordering the California prosecutor to be guilty after allowing the Texas one to run,” he added.
The Supreme Court’s decision to green-light Texas’ redistricting effort, over the opposition of the court’s three liberal justices, appeared to vindicate the state’s and California’s political lobbying.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito also wrote in a similar opinion in that case that it was undisputed that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map later adopted in California) was partisan interest, pure and simple.”
