Civil Rights Brief #249 | Rod Maggay | December 9, 2025
Policy Summary: After the State of Texas’ approval of a re – drawn state congressional map that would be used in 2026 to give them five more likely Republican districts, the State of California decided to respond.
California and Governor Gavin Newsom (D) placed on the 2025 state ballot Proposition 50, known as the Election Rigging Response Act. Since California uses an independent re – districting commission to draw its congressional and state legislative districts, it couldn’t simply have the state legislature pass a bill for a new map and have it signed by the governor like in Texas. The Election Rigging Response Act first re – affirmed its commitment to continue using an independent re – districting commission for future elections. However, the bill authorized a temporary situation where the Legislature would be permitted to re – draw the state map. The new map would make and add the same number of Democratic leaning districts that Texas allowed in their new map – in this case five. The Act was then placed on the ballot for approval from California voters. On November 4, 2025, the act was approved overwhelmingly – 64% voted yes to temporarily allow the Legislature to re – draw the map while 36% voted against. For the upcoming 2026 mid – term elections California would be using a re – drawn map that will likely give it five more Democratic leaning districts.
That was not the end of the re – districting war between the two states.
After the Election Rigging Response Act was approved by California voters, the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit in California to block implementation of the act and the new map. The Department of Justice intervened to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit. That case is now set to be heard in early 2026.
While in Texas, the situation took an unexpected turn. On November 18, 2025 the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas barred the use of the newly re – drawn Texas congressional map and ordered the state to use the prior state legislative district map. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On December 5, 2025, the Court in an unsigned opinion agreed to temporarily pause the order from the federal district court, in effect allowing Texas to use their newly drawn map for the upcoming 2026 mid – term elections.
Policy Analysis: The twists and turns during the re – districting war have seen head – scratching comments and an unlikely twist that weakens Texas’ rationale for re – districting while strengthening California’s efforts to push back on Texas’ efforts.
Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to California’s Proposition 50 by calling it “a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process.” Additionally, DOJ responded to California’s efforts with “we will stop your DEI districts for 2026.” The Department’s intervention in the California lawsuit to prevent implementation of Prop. 50 also claimed that the California map was re – drawn to favor one race over another. These comments are questionable with a closer examination of the facts.
First, for the Attorney General to call Prop. 50 a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights while mocking the democratic process is non – sensical. California did not initiate this re – districting war – Texas did by re – drawing their maps first in a year when it didn’t have to. Texas only did so at the behest of President Donald Trump because of his rumored fears about being impeached. California even made efforts to not go through with their re – districting efforts – with Proposition 50 only going into effect if Texas did and with Governor Newsom calling Texas officials to let them know that they didn’t have to go forward with re – districting. If there was any alleged power grab or mockery of the democratic process, that likely is the fault of Texas and not California. And the claims of DEI and race as a motivation is even more non – sensical. California had no racial motivation to re – draw their maps and even the Supreme Court acknowledged that in their December 5 order written by none other than Justice Samuel Alito. The Justice wrote that it is “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” The Supreme Court here is unquestioningly rebuking the AG and the DOJ’s claims of racial motivation in the re – drawing of the California map and calling it exactly what it is – a partisan reason. For senior government Trump officials to get the motivation to re – draw the map completely wrong questions whether they are truly aware of how this re – districting war is playing out or are trying to mislead citizens.
Finally, the decision by the Supreme Court in the appeal of the El Paso district court decision on December 5 likely may have weakened the Republicans’ lawsuit in California while strengthening California’s legal defense of Proposition 50. The Republicans and DOJ claim in their lawsuit that California re – drew their map with the intent of depriving racial minorities of equal representation in Congress. However, the facts demonstrate that the only reason California put forth Proposition 50 was to counter Texas’ purely partisan reason to re – draw their state map. The proposition even had an escape clause that re – districting in California would only go forward if Texas did. The stated purpose of the proposition in ballot materials was to counter Texas which demonstrates that the bill was designed for partisan purposes and not race. There is no hint of race as being a factor at all. Even Justice Alito called California and Texas efforts “for partisan advantage” which is permitted under law. So, Texas and DOJ’s lawsuit in California to block Prop. 50 has essentially been undermined, no less than with words from the Supreme Court. It is difficult to argue that Prop. 50 had a racial motivation when all the facts demonstrate otherwise. And California gets a boost as their legal defense of the case against it puts their efforts on the right side of the law – that they crafted Proposition 50 for permitted partisan reasons and not racial terms.
These cases are likely not the last word on this re – districting battle as the case in California is still scheduled for a full trial as well as likely appeals to the Supreme Court. Not to mention that there are other re – districting battles going on in other red and blue states that have not been determined yet.