WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to California’s new congressional map, brought by California Republicans adn supported by Trump governance lawyers, who argue that a district in the San Joaquin Valley was intentionally drawn to favor Latino voters, constituting an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This comes after the court recently upheld a Republican-amiable map in Texas, dismissing claims of partisan gerrymandering.
The case presents a potential contradiction, as Trump’s legal team previously argued that partisan considerations, not racial ones, justified the Texas map. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer stated that plaintiffs alleging racial gerrymandering face a “heavy burden” to prove race was the primary factor in map drawing. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed the Texas map to stand, citing the late stage in the election year and presuming good faith on the part of state officials.
However, in the California case, Sauer now contends that the state’s map is “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” pointing to comments from the mapmaker, Paul Mitchell, about bolstering latino-majority districts. Republicans argue a specific district in Merced County has an unusual shape designed to include Democratic voters. They claim California’s motivation was to counter Texas’s gerrymandering, but that doesn’t justify racial considerations in its own map.
A ruling against California coudl possibly cost Democrats five seats in the House of Representatives.
Election law experts, like UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, are skeptical of the Republican arguments, citing the timing of the challenge and the focus on partisanship by California voters. Hasen also notes the potential negative “optics” of the court allowing the Texas map while blocking California’s, particularly given the partisan divide.
The legal processes in the two cases differ. The Texas case involved a detailed 160-page opinion from a three-judge panel, while the California case saw a quicker rejection of the racial gerrymandering claim by a similar panel.Justice Elena Kagan dissented in the Texas case, advocating for deference to the lower court’s factual findings. The majority in the California case found ”exceptionally weak” evidence of racial motivation and “overwhelming” evidence of partisan motivations. The court is expected to act on the appeal in early February.
Worth a look