Court battle begins over California's new congressional map designed to favor Democrats

LOS ANGELES — A federal court on Monday opened a high-stakes challenge to California's new congressional map, approved by voters last year to help Democrats flip multiple House seats. A three-judge panel in the district court considered whether the redrawn districts may be used in elections, with a temporary restraining order sought to block the map by Dec. 19 as candidates begin filing for the 2026 cycle.

At issue is Proposition 50, approved by California voters in November, which redraws Congress districts in a bid to tilt the map toward Democrats. The Justice Department, joining a suit by the California Republican Party, argues the map uses race as a factor to empower Latino voters and violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. California Democrats say the map preserves protections for minority voters and was drawn for lawful reasons, noting a Supreme Court ruling that Texas may use its own map for the 2026 elections and that the California map was drawn for lawful purposes.

Newsom's administration defended the map, with his spokesperson Brandon Richards saying the state expects the lawsuit to fail and that California's maps, like Texas's, were drawn for lawful reasons. The state argues the map was drawn for lawful reasons. The complaint cites a state Democrats' release claiming the new map retains and expands Voting Rights Act districts that empower Latino voters while leaving Black-majority districts in Oakland and Los Angeles unchanged.

The case centers on the federal Voting Rights Act and the claim that the map was drawn to advantage Hispanic voters. The Department of Justice alleges that Paul Mitchell, a redistricting consultant who drew the map for Democrats, and state leaders acknowledged that some districts were redrawn to include a Latino majority.

During the hearing, a dense, technical discussion focused on how District 13 in the Central Valley was shaped, including the Hispanic voting-age population, census blocks and software used to process population data. An elections analyst who testified for the plaintiffs described a pronounced thumb-like extension in the district boundary intended to capture a specific voter bloc, a claim defense attorneys challenged as speculative and not conclusive of racial motivation. The analyst acknowledged the boundary was not as extreme as maps drawn in other states.

Nationwide, the case plays out amid a broader redistricting landscape where states redraw maps after the decennial census. California relies on an independent commission, while states such as Texas allow politicians to draw lines. The timing is unusual because mid-decade redistricting is not common, and the outcome could influence control of the House in 2026, a pivotal moment as Republicans hold 219 seats to Democrats' 214.

Voters approved Prop. 50 for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, and the plaintiffs seek to block use of the new map in those contests. The case has lit up political maneuvering in both states and beyond, with Democratic leaders arguing the suit seeks to silence California voters and that the map was drawn for lawful reasons. The hearing proceeded in Los Angeles as the court weighs whether the map can be used pending a full ruling.

Nguyen reported from Sacramento.