Thursday, November 6, 2025
Page 1
California Republicans File Lawsuit Over Proposition 50
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
|
The California Republican Party, together with Assemblymember David J. Tangipa, R-Fresno, and 18 residents, yesterday filed a complaint against Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber challenging the constitutionality of the congressional district maps that are slated to be implemented following Tuesday’s passage of Proposition 50.
Known as “The Election Rigging Response Act,” Proposition 50 calls for the temporary use of new congressional district maps through 2030, replacing the ones drawn by the nonpartisan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission with those prepared by the Democrat-controlled Legislature. The newly-approved maps make it likely that five of California’s Republican-held congressional seats will go to Democrats in next year’s midterm elections.
Newsom was an early proponent of the alleged-gerrymandering measure, which was promoted as a response to a move by Texas lawmakers last summer to implement redistricting that would purportedly favor Republican candidates.
Yesterday’s filing accuses the proponents of the measure of drawing congressional district lines on the basis of race to favor Hispanic voters without evidence that the group is disenfranchised in the state’s electoral process.
Constitutional Violations
In the pleading, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs assert violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and allege that “[t]he map…was not drawn by legislators” but was instead prepared by “Paul Mitchell of Redistricting Partners.” They claim:
“Mitchell acknowledged during a public presentation that his work on the Legislature’s plan was guided by racial considerations and that his ‘number one thing that [he] first started thinking about’ was ‘drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles[]’….”
The pleading points to an Oct. 23 post on X, formerly Twitter, in which Mitchell wrote that the “proposed Proposition 50 map will further increase Latino voting power over the current Commission map,” citing a joint report from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and the California Institute of Technology.
It alleges that “there were multiple statements made by various legislators that they believed the maps…complied with the [Voting Rights Act],” which the plaintiffs characterize as coded language indicating that “race was the predominant factor” in how some of the districts were drawn.
Racial Gerrymandering
Saying that the maps amount to unconstitutional “racial gerrymandering,” the plaintiffs assert:
“While compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) may justify race-based districting under current law notwithstanding the Equal Protection Clause,…the Supreme Court requires states to prove that, among other things, they in fact adopted the new district lines based on evidence that a minority race usually could not elect its preferred candidates due to the concerted opposition of voters of a white majority race….Without proof of this condition, states have no lawful basis to enact race-based congressional districts.”
The complaint alleges that, as to each of the individual plaintiffs, “[t]he challenged plan assigns [the party] to a district drawn with race as the predominant factor, causing stigmatic and representational injury” and that the California Republican Party “has a vital interest in protecting the ability of Republican voters to vote in elections where the districts” are drawn fairly.
Seeking a declaration that the “Proposition 50 maps, as applied to Plaintiffs, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause” and the Fifteenth Amendment, the pleading requests injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the measure. Proposition 50 passed at a special election with more than 60% of voters casting a ballot in favor of the measure.
Michael A. Columbo, Shawn Cowles, and Mark P. Meuser of the Dhillon Law Group Inc. prepared yesterday’s pleading. The firm was founded by Harmeet Dhillon, who is currently serving as U.S. assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump.
The MetNews reached out to the Governor’s Office for comment. Deputy Director for Rapid Response Brandon Richards remarked:
“We haven’t reviewed the lawsuit, but if it’s from the California Republican Party and Harmeet Dhillon’s law firm, it’s going to fail. Good luck, losers.”
The filing of the lawsuit follows last month’s argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais which involves a constitutional challenge to a redistricting measure that resulted in two majority-Black congressional districts. A dozen white voters sued, alleging that the map discriminated against them because of their race.
One of the issues before the high court is whether the creation of “minority opportunity districts” under the Voting Rights Act, when certain electoral conditions are met, can withstand constitutional scrutiny.
The METNEWS reached out to the Governor’s Office for comment. Deputy Director for Rapid Response Brandon Richards remarked:
“We haven’t reviewed the lawsuit, but if it’s from the California Republican Party and Harmeet Dhillon’s law firm, it’s going to fail. Good luck, losers.”
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company