Supreme Court, with no dissents, rejects GOP challenge to California's new election map

David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times on Feb 4, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.

With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more congressional seats in Texas. He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in response to the court’s decision.

Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.

But the court turned down the appeal in a one-line order with no explanation.

It was unusual for the Justice Department and the U.S. solicitor general to intervene in a state election dispute, especially after staking out the opposite view in a similar dispute from Texas.

Trump’s lawyers said the Texas redistricting favoring Republicans should be upheld, but the California redistricting favoring Democrats should be blocked.

The Trump arguments were met by silence from the court, including its six conservatives.

In defense of California’s new map, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.

Newsom proposed redrawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”

He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.

Voters approved the change in November.

While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.

“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.

It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.

The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population (in District 13) decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.

Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.

“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” said Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. “Let’s remember how we got here. President Trump told Gov. Greg Abbott that Republicans were ‘entitled’ to five more congressional seats, and Texas Republicans fell in line.”

In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.

In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map. The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.

California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.

“In reaffirming the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court recognized what has been clear all along: Proposition 50 reflects a political decision, not an unlawful racial gerrymander,” said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Action.

Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said the GOP drive to redraw election maps had backfired.

“Today’s ruling proves that Trump and Republicans’ shameless gerrymandering has only empowered Democratic states to fight back just as hard,” she said. “Republicans thought they could rig the maps in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina without pushback — but they were sorely mistaken.”

_____