Tag: gerrymandering

Wisconsin’s Lib-Led Supreme Court Stacks The Congressional Map Deck

While milquetoast Republicans experience a collective tummy ache over the “fairness” of mid-decade redistricting, Democrats nationally are feasting on power-grabbing gerrymanders.  

The latest outflanking comes — not surprisingly — from Wisconsin’s liberal-controlled Supreme Court. 

‘Forum Shopping’

Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Badger State’s court of last resort ordered the creation of judicial panels to hear two lawsuits seeking to undo Wisconsin’s existing  congressional maps, in which six of eight House seats are held by Republicans. Interestingly, the district lines were drawn by a committee whose members were appointed by Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a far-left Democrat. The Evers maps benefitted Democrats, but didn’t go far enough for a Democratic Party salivating over a potential congressional power grab with the help of the liberal-led Supreme Court. 

In a move oozing with partisanship, the court’s liberal justices selected some of the more far-left lower court judges in the state to serve on the two panels.

Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler, one of three conservatives on the seven-member court, argued that the majority’s orders disregard the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions and ignore fundamental legal principles. 

“The majority not only undermines our constitutional authority and circumvents established redistricting precedent but also, again, usurps the legislature’s constitutional power,” Ziegler chided. “In allowing this litigation to proceed, the majority abdicates its constitutional superintending authority to Wisconsin’s circuit courts.”

The Republican-controlled state legislature and Wisconsin’s six GOP congressmen argue that the lawsuits confuse political representation concepts. But the Supreme Court’s majority said the argument is merely a matter of semantics, that “apportionment” and “redistricting” are used interchangeably in drawing up — or in this case, redrawing — political boundaries. And the law, the majority assert, requires the court “appoint a panel consisting of 3 circuit court judges to hear” a redistricting lawsuit. 

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, who has at times sided with the liberals on the court, takes no issue with the creation of the panels. In his dissenting opinion, however, Hagedorn disagrees with the process. He argued the law is “transparently designed to prevent forum shopping in disputes over where congressional lines should be drawn.” But that’s exactly what the majority did. 

“Given the nature of this case and the statute’s implicit call for geographic diversity and neutrality, a randomly-selected panel and venue would be a better way to fulfill the statutory mandate,” the justice wrote. “Instead, my colleagues have chosen to keep this case in Dane County and leave the originally assigned Dane County judge on the panel.”  Dane County’s circuit court, located in state capital and far-left enclave Madison, is one the more left-leaning courts in the country. 

Keep reading

Federal Judges Allow North Carolina to Use New GOP-Drawn Congressional Map

Federal judges in North Carolina allowed the state to use the newly drawn congressional map, which gives Republicans one extra seat in the House.

Two lawsuits were filed to block the North Carolina legislature from enacting the newly drawn map.

A three-judge panel of the US District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina denied requests for a preliminary injunction.

NBC News reported:

A federal court in North Carolina is allowing the state to use a new Republican-drawn congressional map that would help the GOP pick up another seat in the House during next year’s midterm elections.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina unanimously denied preliminary injunction requests brought by a pair of lawsuits that said in part that the new map was aimed at diluting the voting strength of Black voters, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The judges found that the challengers “presented no direct evidence” that the North Carola Legislature enacted the map for racially discriminatory purposes.

“Instead, the direct evidence shows that the 2025 redistricting was motivated by partisan purposes,” the panel wrote Wednesday in a 57-page opinion.

Wednesday’s ruling comes after the Republican-controlled North Carolina Legislature last month approved a map aimed at expanding the number of Republican seats in the House. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, does not have the power to veto the map.

The challengers, in a pair of consolidated lawsuits, asked the court to block the state from using the new borders of two congressional districts for next year’s midterms.

Texas is also battling its newly redrawn congressional map in court and has asked the Supreme Court to halt the lower court’s ruling that blocked the new redraw.

Last Friday, Justice Alito paused the lower court’s ruling and temporarily restored Texas’s new congressional map.

In response to Texas’s redraw, California eliminated 5 House GOP seats.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California and argued that its new congressional map is a result of unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering.

Keep reading

Panel of Federal Judges Block New Texas Congressional Map, Orders State to Use 2021 Map

A panel of federal judges on Tuesday blocked the new Texas Congressional map and ordered the state to use the 2021 map.

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel ordered Texas to use its 2021 congressional map.

The judges claimed the newly redrawn map is unconstitutional because it appears to be a ‘race-based gerrymander.’

The ruling is expected to be immediately appealed.

US District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion.

Politico reported:

A panel of federal judges has blocked Texas’ newly-redrawn congressional map — which made five districts in the state more favorable to Republicans — saying the plan appeared to be an illegal race-based gerrymander.

In a 2-1 ruling, the court ordered Texas to rely instead on the boundaries legislators drew in 2021. The new map, the majority concluded, appears likely to be unconstitutional and was drawn at the urging of the Trump administration.

“The map ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor — the 2025 Map — achieved all but one of the racial objectives that DOJ demanded,” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Galveston-based Trump appointee, wrote for the panel majority.

In late August, the Texas House voted on the new Congressional map after the Democrats stonewalled them for more than two weeks.

The map, passed 19–2 along party lines, was designed to create up to five new Republican‑drawn U.S. House seats in anticipation of the 2026 midterm elections.

“This mid-decade redistricting isn’t about fair representation—it’s about politicians picking their voters instead of voters choosing their leaders,” the Senate Democrat Caucus said in a previous statement. “And it doesn’t stop here. If they can gerrymander now, they can and will do it before every election.”

Democrat-run California passed a new congressional map that eliminates five GOP seats in response to Texas’s new map.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that its new map is unconstitutional because it is allegedly race-based.

Keep reading

DOJ Joins Lawsuit Challenging California’s Redistricting Maps

The Department of Justice has sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber for the State of California’s newly adopted redistricting plan enacted with the passage of Proposition 50. 

The suit alleges that the plan mandates racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

Proposition 50 amends the California Constitution, allowing the legislature to draw a new congressional-district map. Substantial evidence, including that in the legislative record and public statements, indicates that the legislature created a new map in which Latino demographics and racial considerations predominated, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50,” said Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond.”

The 20-page document was filed in California’s district court and claims that the proposition used race as a proxy to advance political interests. 

Keep reading

Utah Activist Judge Hands Democrats a Win — Tosses GOP-Drawn Congressional Map and Imposes Plaintiff’s Version Ahead of 2026 Elections, Projected to Give Dems +1 Seat

The Utah Third District Court has struck down the congressional map crafted by the Republican-led state legislature, labeling it an unconstitutional “gerrymander” and replacing it with a map drawn by left-wing plaintiffs.

The new map, which the court claims better complies with the state’s anti-gerrymandering initiative, is projected to give Democrats an additional seat in one of the nation’s deeply red states.

At the heart of the controversy is the court’s decision to affirm a lower court injunction blocking the legislature’s maps (S.B. 1011 and S.B. 1012, known as Map C), claiming they violated Proposition 4 — a 2018 initiative designed to curb partisan gerrymandering.

The Court, led by Judge Dianna M. Gibson, has thrown out the legislature’s S.B. 1012 (Map C) and S.B. 1011, both approved earlier this year by the state’s duly elected representatives.

And instead adopts “Map 1,” drawn by the plaintiffs themselves, after declaring that the legislature’s map “unduly favored Republicans.”

“Map C was drawn with partisan political data on display,” wrote Gibson.

“Map C does not abide by Proposition 4’s traditional redistricting criteria ‘to the greatest extent practicable.’ And, based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that Map C was drawn with the purpose to favor Republicans—a conclusion that follows from even S.B. 1011’s metric for partisan intent—and it unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.”

“In short, [the Legislature’s map] does not comply with Utah law,” Gibson wrote in her ruling.

“Because the Lieutenant Governor’s November 10, 2025, deadline for a map to be finalized is upon us, the Court bears the unwelcome obligation to ensure that a lawful map is in place, which the Court discharges by adopting.”

Gibson’s opinion dismisses the legislature’s chosen criteria as “biased,” while elevating the plaintiffs’ computer-generated maps as the new standard for “neutrality.”

“Under the only reliable ensemble of computer-simulated maps that comply with Proposition 4’s requirements offered by the parties, Map C is an extreme partisan outlier—more Republican than over 99% of expected maps drawn without political considerations,” she wrote.

“The Court therefore finds that Map C is an extreme statistical outlier not only when compared to Dr. Chen’s simulations, which universally comply with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria, but also when compared to subsets of Dr. Trende’s simulations as they approach compliance with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria.

“Given Map C’s level of pro-Republican favoritism and extreme statistical departure from maps drawn to comply with Proposition 4’s neutral criteria given the state’s political geography, the Court credits Dr. Chen’s conclusion that Map C’s partisan characteristics cannot be attributed to compliance with those criteria or the state’s political geography,” she wrote.

Under the court-imposed Map 1, Utah’s longstanding 4-0 Republican advantage could be broken for the first time in decades, despite the state voting Republican in every presidential race since 1968 and in every congressional district by double digits.

The last time the state supported a Democratic presidential candidate was in the national Democratic landslide of 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson won the state.

In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama narrowly won Salt Lake County, the state’s most populous county, marking the first time a Democrat had carried that county since 1964. The new map creates a Democrat-leaning district centered around Salt Lake County.

Keep reading

Prop 50 Passes: California Voters Approve Newsom’s Power Grab to Eliminate 5 Congressional Seats

As expected, California voters approved Prop 50 which could help the Democrats flip 5 congressional seats in 2026.

Thanks to ballot drop boxes, mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, and illegal aliens, voters approved Newsom’s power grab to eliminate five GOP congressional seats through 2030.

“The five California Republicans targeted by the redistricting plan include Representatives Doug LaMalfa in District 1, Kevin Kiley in District 3, David Valadao in District 22, Ken Calvert in District 41, and Darrell Issa in District 48,” KCRA reported.

Earlier Tuesday, President Trump called the redistricting vote in California a “giant scam” and said it is under criminal review.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED. All “Mail-In” Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are “Shut Out,” is under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!” President Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Keep reading

Health Insurance Companies Spend Big To Support California’s Partisan Redistricting Fight

In Washington, Democrats continue to keep the federal government shut down, demanding an extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies scheduled to expire on December 31. Half a continent away, two health insurers are helping to fund a partisan campaign by one of the country’s most prominent Democrats. Coincidence?

The political donations represent but one more example of how big corporations want to feather the nest of Big Government and bankroll the leftist politicians willing to expand the same. It’s also yet another reason why Congress should let the enhanced subsidies expire as scheduled.

Big-Money Donations

A September story in the Sacramento Bee discussing money raised for and against the state’s Proposition 50 ballot measure on congressional redistricting noted two sizable donations from health insurers — $500,000 from Blue Shield of California, and $75,000 from UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest insurer. The news raises numerous questions, starting with how the insurers could afford such large political contributions in the first place.

After all, as I have previously noted, a recent California law that went into effect in March requires insurers to engage in “cultural competency training” regarding the transgender agenda. Apart from the fact that such training — more like indoctrination — likely violates employees’ First Amendment rights and federal conscience protections, it could also prove costly for insurers.

On top of the new administrative costs from this new mandate, UnitedHealth faces expenses from last year’s hack of Change Healthcare, one of its affiliates, that caused chaos within the health care system for months. So where and how exactly did these insurers have the wherewithal to make such large contributions?

Partisan Affair

The related question focuses more on the specifics of Proposition 50 itself. The referendum doesn’t touch on a health care-related issue — or really any policy issue whatsoever. It’s a pure political power play by Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-CA, attempting to gerrymander more Democratic-leaning congressional districts in California to offset Republican gerrymanders in Texas and elsewhere. Why are health insurers getting involved in such overtly political activities?

In responding to questions from the Daily Wire, Blue Shield of California claimed that it made its donations to Newsom’s ballot measure committee before it knew that Proposition 50 would end up on the November ballot. That’s arguably true regarding its first $250,000 contribution, made on April 24. But by the time of its second $250,000 contribution on July 16, rumors had started swirling about actions by California to respond to redistricting efforts by Texas Republicans.

Blue Shield of California also told the Daily Wire that it contributes to lawmakers on a bipartisan basis. But after its $500,000 contribution to Newsom’s ballot measure campaign, its next-largest contributions were $50,000 to the California Democratic Party, and $20,000 to the LGBT Caucus Leadership Fund — all of which suggests its donations go overwhelmingly to Democrats in a state with de facto one-party rule.

Keep reading

Indiana Governor Calls Special Session to Redraw Congressional Maps

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican, on Oct. 27 called for state lawmakers to return to Indianapolis for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional districts in an escalation of a growing multi-state, mid-cycle redistricting showdown.

President Donald Trump has increased pressure on Republican governors to call special legislative sessions to draw new congressional maps to give the GOP additional House seats in next year’s midterms, a key election in which the incumbent party in the White House historically loses seats in Congress.

The multi-state redistricting battle kicked off with Texas and Missouri, and now California Democrats have responded with a voter proposition to consider their own redistricting plan to blunt the GOP’s impact.

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, signed his state’s congressional redistricting bill into law on Sept. 28. California voters will vote in November on Proposition 50, which would allow the state government to redraw its districts in response to Republican gerrymandering in other states. Former President Barack Obama recently joined California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, in endorsing the ballot measure.

While lawmakers in Indiana had been more hesitant about redrawing their congressional maps and had held off for weeks on engaging in the effort, Braun is now calling for the Indiana General Assembly to convene on Nov. 3.

The plan would likely involve targeting the state’s First Congressional District that spans Gary and nearby cities in Indiana’s northwest corner near Chicago. Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.) has held the seat for three terms and is running for reelection next year.

Keep reading

Massive SCOTUS Case Could Guarantee House Control For GOP

The Supreme Court took a second look at a case that could result in handing the Republican Party guaranteed control of the House of Representatives last week, and initial reports suggest a major ruling is on the horizon. If the highest court in the land strikes down Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, the GOP’s hold over the House could become insurmountable.

Reports say that if Section 2 is removed, which has been interpreted previously as requiring the creation of majority-minority districts, the Republican Party could toss out a dozen Democratic-held districts in the South.

It all started when a group of voters challenged a 2024 congressional map by claiming that it pushes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. This means the map sorts voters based on their race, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The court heard two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, with conservative justices signaling they are most likely going to undermine a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, though they might not strike it down completely.

“Wednesday’s oral argument was the latest chapter in a dispute that dates back to 2022, when Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. Roughly one-third of the state’s population is Black, but the 2022 map had only one majority-Black district out of the six districts allotted to the state. That prompted a group of Black voters to go to federal court, where they argued that the 2022 map violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bars discrimination in voting practices,” SCOTUS Blog reported.

U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick agreed that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2. She then forbade the state from using this particular map in future elections and ordered the state to create a new map featuring two majority-Black districts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit supported that ruling. It then gave the state until January 15, 2024, to produce a new map; otherwise, the lower court would develop a plan for the 2024 elections.

Louisiana then created a new map that created a second majority-Black district. Complaints came forward from a group of voters who referred to themselves as “non-African American.” A three-judge federal district court ruled that the 2024 map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, as it sorted voters based on race. The court banned the state from using the map in future elections.

“In May 2024, the Supreme Court put the three-judge district court’s ruling on hold, which allowed the state to move forward with using the new map in the 2024 elections. Voters in the 6th District, the new majority-Black district, elected Cleo Fields, a former member of Congress who had represented another majority-Black district during the 1990s, to represent them,” SCOTUS Blog writes.

Louisiana and the Black voters then appealed to the Supreme Court, which listened to oral arguments for the first time since spring. The state stated that once the lower courts determined the 2022 map likely violated the VRA, it directed the state to redraw a map with a second majority-Black district. State Republicans’ primary goal was to provide protection for the state’s GOP incumbents, such as Speaker Mike Johnson and Rep. Julia Letlow, who is an active member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Keep reading

Key State Passes New Congressional Map ‘Locking In’ Additional GOP Seat

Duke University math professor Jonathan Mattingly conducted an analysis to discover if a new Trump-supported congressional map in North Carolina would result in the Republican Party locking in additional seats. The answer, he uncovered, is a resounding yes.

Three days before publishing his results on Sunday, the GOP revealed another mid-decade congressional map proposal that would bolster the party’s grip in Congress. It does so by expanding the boundaries of the state’s 1st Congressional District, which is currently held by Democrat Don Davis, pulling in some of the 3rd Congressional District, which is represented by Republican Greg Murphy.

The 1st District is the only one in the state considered a swing district, meaning it’s not a guaranteed win for either Democrats or Republicans.

A report from The News Observer shared Mattingly’s findings after the state’s Senate passed the map, sending it down to the House for final approval.

“Lawmakers returned to Raleigh on Monday and are expected to pass the proposed map, after failing to pass a full state budget before the end of the fiscal year in June or approve during its session last month additional funding to avoid Medicaid cuts,” the report said.

Mattingly claims the new map is all but certain to shift a House seat to the GOP for the foreseeable future if passed by the state’s full legislature.

“The previous map was not very responsive to changing public sentiment. But there was one district that was in doubt, and this one (new map) has largely removed that district,” he explained. “It’s very effectively shifted one district from the Democrats to the Republicans,” and “seems to lock in, 11-3, no matter what happens.”

North Carolina’s congressional map was redrawn in 2023 by the Republican-led legislature in order to provide the GOP with a boost, leading to the election of 10 Republicans and four Democrats during the 2024 elections. The article goes on to say that the map replaced a previous one drawn up by court-appointed “experts” for the 2022 midterm elections as a replacement for one drawn following the 2020 Census. It was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in Harper v. Hall.

The map that was drawn after the intervention of the court led to a 7-7 split in the 2022 elections. The North Carolina Supreme Court gained a GOP majority that year, and the new court ruled it didn’t have jurisdiction over claims of partisan gerrymandering.

Mattingly’s latest analysis reveals the latest map would preserve a total of three seats for the Democratic Party under a variety of scenarios taking into consideration how residents might vote. Even if the statewide vote should shift significantly along party lines, the same number of Republicans, 11, would pull in victories.

“That pattern appears in a graphic from the new analysis, which looks at several statewide elections from 2016 and 2020, including races for governor, auditor and others, where the Democratic vote share ranged from just over 46% to more than 52%. The graphic shows how many seats Democrats and Republicans would likely win under different simulated map scenarios. It indicates that under the newly proposed map, Democrats would win only three seats across more than 10 elections tested, except in one case — the 2020 auditor’s race,” The News Observer wrote.

“When the electorate changes its mind dramatically — when it switches from 46% statewide to a 52% … you’d like to have a map with a number of districts that would change who controls them,” Mattingly stated in his analysis.

Researchers used the results from past elections to show how the new map packs voters into a district or splits them across district lines, which they claim will dilute their influence.

Keep reading