Tag: gerrymandering

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

Despite Headlines, There Is No Reduction in Voting Rights

Liberals and Democrats are claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make a ruling that will restrict voting rights because race will no longer be considered in districting.

This is false.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all adults aged 18 and over have the right to vote, and they will continue to have that right. No ruling or policy under consideration eliminates or limits that constitutional guarantee.

What critics are truly upset about is that race will no longer be used to determine electoral districting. The Trump administration argued that race had been overemphasized in the process, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The move aims to ensure that district boundaries are drawn based on population and geography, not racial calculations.

This debate, and the exaggerated claims that someone is losing their rights, reveal a deeper divide between the two parties. Republicans argue that equality means the same rules for everyone, regardless of race. Democrats, on the other hand, insist that equality requires different rules for different groups based on race

The Supreme Court appeared inclined to further restrict the use of race in redistricting. During recent arguments, conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether race-based remedies should continue indefinitely, suggesting that the Court may soon impose new limits on when race can factor into drawing congressional maps.

The Court’s three liberal justices, however, warned that weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would effectively dismantle the law and reduce minority representation in Congress.

Democrats argue that Section 2 is essential for protecting minority voting rights and warn that a conservative victory in the current Louisiana case could trigger widespread redistricting. They claim this would reduce the number of minority-held seats, particularly across the South.

However, the United States does not have a quota system, and no congressional seats are specifically designated as “minority seats.” Fair, race-neutral voting would simply result in all seats being awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of race.

The Court’s decision, expected by mid-2026, could mark another major rollback of federal race-based policies, following the 2013 elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Democrats claim that minority “voting power” or “electoral influence,” will be diluted. The Act prohibits voting practices that “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.” Over time, courts have interpreted “abridge” to include not only preventing people from voting but also drawing district lines that intentionally dilute minority voting strength. Democrats argue that the Act ensures the right for every vote to carry equal weight and influence.

Keep reading

Here Are 6 Key Moments From SCOTUS Arguments In Landmark Race-Based Redistricting Case

UPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a pair of high stakes redistricting cases that could significantly reshape American electoral politics.

Known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, the matter focuses on a dispute over the use of race in Louisiana’s congressional map. While the state’s initial map included a single black-majority district, a lawsuit and subsequent legal battle led lawmakers to redraw the map to include a second black-majority district, producing another legal battle that centered on the state’s allegedly unlawful use of race when creating the new map.

During oral arguments, the justices probed parties on the facts of the respective cases and the longstanding judicial conflict over provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2) and 14th Amendment (equal protection clause). Here are some of the biggest moments from the hearing.

Jackson Said What About the Disabled?

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from making ill-advised statements, whether they be in interviews or opinions. So, it wasn’t surprising when the Biden appointee suggested race be considered by states in redistricting because black Americans are systemically “disabled” and don’t have legitimate access to the elections process.

“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings,” Jackson said, effectively arguing that it doesn’t matter whether such discrimination is intentional or not.

“I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. … We are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled … We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

Thomas Asks a Simple (Yet Meaningful) Question

As the longest serving member of the current court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as a critical voice of reason in many matters that come before the highest bench in the land. One of the ways he does this is through simple, yet meaningful, questions to parties in oral arguments.

While questioning Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, Thomas asked “what role” the federal district court’s block on the state’s initial map “play[ed] in development of” the new map that included a second black-majority district. The state solicitor general disclosed that the court’s order is the “only reason” Louisiana drew a new map.

“Justice Thomas, [that court decision] is the only reason [this new map] exists,” Aguiñaga said. “We fought tooth and nail in the Robinson litigation itself in telling the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted us to draw a second majority-black district. As you know, under protest, we drew [the new map] because the threat was that the federal courts would do it if we didn’t.”

“We would never pass [the new map] in the first instance without Robinson, Justice Thomas,” he added.

[READ: In Race-Based Redistricting Battle, Louisiana Urges SCOTUS To Uphold America’s ‘Color Blind’ Constitution]

DOJ Official Silences Sotomayor

Arguing on the side of Louisiana, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan got into a testy exchange with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor over the Pelican State’s creation of a second-black majority district.

In debating the racial and political motivations behind the creation of maps like Louisiana’s, Mooppan noted the racial double standard that exists where if the block of voters in question were white, there wouldn’t be a debate about whether there should be an additional district tailored to their community.

“If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. None,” Mooppan said. “And so what is happening here is their argument is, because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get a second district. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.”

Keep reading

“Black” voting districts are unconstitutional, unfair, and condescending

The map shows the contorted Congressional District in Louisiana that is at issue in the Supreme Court case that was argued yesterday.

You won’t see this map in most of the news reports on the case – not because it’s not newsworthy, but because it is. This picture speaks a thousand words about the absurdity at issue.

All parties to the case – and the Supreme Court Justices, as well – agree that this strange amalgamation was created for the express purpose of establishing a district that is supposedly Black* so that Blacks could be assured of electing Black representatives.

(I say “supposedly Black” because most Blacks in Louisiana, as in other American states, are actually of mixed race.)

There are several problems with this notion of Black Congressional Districts. First, it assumes that people identifying as Blacks can be represented in Congress only by other people identifying as Blacks. Why is that the case? I’m white and I’ve voted for Black candidates, and I’m sure many Blacks have voted for white candidates. In fact, Donald Trump got a substantial share of the Black vote last year.

Second, the flip side of concentrating Blacks into Black districts is to concentrate whites into white districts. If we’re to have separate Congressional Districts, should we also have separate schools? Separate drinking fountains?

In a region of the country with a sordid Jim Crow history of “separate but equal,” having separate Congressional Districts strikes me as a vile throwback.

Third, what happens if one of the white districts in Louisiana elects a Black? That would result in Blacks having too many seats, right? Conversely, what happens if a Black district elects a white? Does that mean we need to go back to the racial gerrymandering board to re-draw the districts again?

Fourth, this notion that Blacks are entitled to Congressional representation in exact proportion to their population (or more in the event a Black gets elected in a white district) would seem to apply equally to other races.

In Washington State, for example, about 10% of the population is of Asian descent. Many of their ancestors were exploited and discriminated against. Should we gerrymander the Congressional Districts in Washington to ensure that 10% of the representatives are Asian?

What do we do if the Asian voters don’t go along? What do we do if they “wrongly” vote for a white or Black or Hispanic rather than for the Asian candidate that they’re supposed to vote for? What if they vote for politicians on the basis of policy, not race? Or on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin?

Gee, that’d be horrible, huh?

Keep reading