The California Republican Party and private plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief to stop Prop 50’s mid-decade redistricting map from being used in 2026, arguing the lines were drawn on the basis of race rather than politics and that federal law forbids racial districting. They ask SCOTUS to restore the Citizens Redistricting Commission’s 2021 maps while the challenge proceeds, stressing the urgency because candidate filing begins in early February 2026. The plaintiffs point to testimony, public statements, and expert analysis presented in a December hearing to support their claim that race, not partisanship, guided the new map. The case turned on whether voters themselves, who approved Prop 50, acted with racial intent when they supported the measure.
Plaintiffs filed their suit and asked for a preliminary injunction right after a November special election, and a three-day evidentiary hearing followed in December. During that hearing, the consultant who drew the map, Paul Mitchell, declined to testify and cited legislative privilege. The plaintiffs say Mitchell’s refusal prevented the court from fully probing how the lines were drawn, and they offered other evidence they say shows race was the operative factor.
The district court recently rejected the preliminary injunction motion, finding plaintiffs needed to prove that California voters—who did not draw the maps—were motivated by race rather than politics when they voted for Proposition 50. That ruling forced the plaintiffs to elevate their argument to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis so that the 2026 electoral calendar does not move forward under the contested map.
The emergency application highlights public statements by California lawmakers in mid-2025 that plaintiffs contend reveal race-based motivations. One example quoted in filings shows Senate leadership describing the map in racial terms, and the plaintiffs maintain such comments connect legislative intent and the final lines. Those statements are central to the claim that race, not legitimate redistricting principles, dictated certain boundary choices.
“The new map makes no changes to historic Black districts in Oakland and the Los Angeles area, and retains and expands Voting Rights Act districts that empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choices.”
Another lawmaker used evocative language during floor debate, framing the measure as a shield for voters of color and tying the map directly to racial protections. Plaintiffs argue these remarks, together with the mapmaker’s own admissions, form a pattern of race-focused reasoning that runs contrary to constitutional limits on using skin color as the basis for assigning political power.
“If Florida wants to silence voters of color, we will not sit quietly. . . . This is about whether a Latino child in Texas, a black family in Florida, or an immigrant community in California, has a voice in their own democracy members. . . . It’s not just a bill, it’s [a] shield. A shield against racist maps . . . .”
Plaintiffs also point to the mapmaker’s public remarks and participation in advocacy events as further proof of racial intent. Mitchell, described in filings as a partisan consultant, told an audience focused on Latino political engagement that he first created a “Latino district” and praised the Prop 50 map for bolstering Latino voting strength. Plaintiffs argue statements like that show purpose, not incidental effect.
In filings and testimony, the plaintiffs relied on expert analysis showing the geometry and composition of specific districts could not be explained by normal redistricting criteria or by straightforward political calculations. They singled out District 13 in the Central Valley as a clear example where lines bend and protrude in ways the expert said are best explained by racial targeting rather than compactness, community cohesion, or partisan advantage.
Dr. Trende concluded that District 13’s “twisted shapes cannot be explained by traditional redistricting principles, nor can they be explained by politics,” and he identified the district map’s protrusion into the city of Stockton as the clearest example. Instead of drawing lines to capture the most proximate Democratic precincts, which would most directly advance the Legislature’s professed partisan objective, the District 13 map bypassed those precincts in favor of less-Democratic Latino neighborhoods,
Plaintiffs’ lead counsel argued that treating voters differently by race cannot be disguised as politics and remain lawful, pointing to the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. The California Republican Party chair emphasized the risk of locking in districts that allegedly violate federal law, and urged the high court to act before candidate filing deadlines make the contested map effectively permanent for 2026.
“California cannot create districts by race, and the state should not be allowed to lock in districts that break federal law. Our emergency application asks the Supreme Court to put the brakes on Prop. 50 now, before the Democrats try to run out the clock and force candidates and voters to live with unconstitutional congressional districts. Californians deserve fair districts and clean elections, not a backroom redraw that picks winners and losers based on race.”
The plaintiffs asked the Court to issue an injunction before February 9, 2026, when congressional candidates in California will begin filing to qualify for the June primary ballot. With the calendar compressing and ballots to be prepared, the emergency petition frames the issue as immediate: either the Prop 50 map is frozen in place for the upcoming cycle, or the CRC’s 2021 maps should govern while the legal challenge proceeds.
Add comment