California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks in Los Angeles during a 2025 campaign event on Proposition 50. Voters approved the ballot measure, allowing the state’s Democratic leaders to temporarily replace the state’s congressional map to help Democrats win five additional U.S. House seats.
Ethan Swope/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Ethan Swope/AP
The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year’s midterm election, clearing the way for the state’s gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The state’s voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas’ new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House.
And in a brief, unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court denied an emergency request by the California’s Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state’s GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.
The ruling on California’s redistricting plan comes two months after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Texas map that kicked off a nationwide gerrymandering fight by boosting the GOP’s chances of winning five additional House seats.
“With an eye on the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, several States have in recent months redrawn their congressional districts in ways that are predicted to favor the State’s dominant political party,” said the court’s December order in the Texas case. “Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.”
The “impetus” for adopting both states’ maps was “partisan advantage pure and simple,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion, which fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not reviewable by federal courts.
While the Trump administration supported the Texas redistricting by Republicans, it opposed California’s, describing it as “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” The administration asserted the case was different from Texas’ due to the timing of the states’ candidate filing periods and the fact that the California Republican Party and the federal government provided alternative maps that met California’s “stated partisan goals.”
Where the California map fits into the larger redistricting fight
Democrats are counting on California’s map to help their party push back against Republican gerrymandering in Texas and other states. With rulings upholding both the Texas and California maps, the end result is that the two states may essentially cancel out each other’s partisan gains.
Legal fights are still playing out over other new congressional maps, as Republican-led Florida and Democratic-led Maryland take steps to join the list of states that have redistricted before the midterms.
In New York, Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and GOP members of the state’s elections board are appealing a state judge’s order for a new redistricting plan that would redraw Malliotakis’ district, which the judge found illegally dilutes Black and Latino voters’ collective power. A redraw of the New York City-based district could tip it into the Democrats’ column.
In Utah, two House Republicans have filed a federal lawsuit that claims a new state court-selected congressional map, which could help Democrats win an additional House seat, violates the U.S. Constitution.
And in Virginia, a judge has ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting violates state law because the process Democratic state lawmakers used to advance it was improper. Virginia Democrats are appealing the decision.
Redistricting also remains an issue for the Supreme Court this term.
It has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, but the October oral arguments suggested that the court’s conservative majority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Such a ruling could lead to new rounds of congressional gerrymandering — and the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress.
Edited by Benjamin Swasey
