Supreme Court shuts down California GOP bid to block Newsom's new map

The Supreme Court cleared the way for California to use its newly redrawn congressional map, shifting five seats in Democrats’ favor, in the 2026 midterm elections.

The unsigned order declining to take up an appeal from California Republicans comes after voters in the state approved a ballot measure called Proposition 50, which allowed the state to enact the Democrat-friendly map in time for the midterms.

State Republicans, joined by the Department of Justice, sued, alleging the map was an illegal racial gerrymander, in part because the mapmaker, Paul Mitchell, touted that it would bolster the Latino vote.

DOJ JOINS LAWSUIT AGAINST NEWSOM OVER ‘RACIAL GERRYMANDER’ OF CALIFORNIA MAP

Lawyers for California had argued to the high court that those claims were insufficient to meet the high burden required to overturn the map. They also said no district actually gained Latino residents of voting age.

"None of the stray statements invoked by plaintiffs … reveals any race-based motive, let alone a racial motivation that predominates over all others," the California lawyers wrote.

Proposition 50, according to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, was a way to fight what he called President Donald Trump's "power grab in Texas," which passed its own map intended to give Republicans five seats.

Newsom and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott both professed that their redistricting efforts were grounded in politics and that race was not a predominant factor in the map drawing process. 

But lawyers for California Republicans argued to the Supreme Court their state officials "harbored another purpose as well: maximizing Latino voting strength to shore up Latino support for the Democratic Party." The lawyers called Proposition 50 a "pernicious and unconstitutional use of race." 

The Supreme Court greenlit Texas’ map in December, reversing a lower court decision that had blocked it.

The voting rights groups who challenged Texas and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott claimed that the map was an illegal racial gerrymander, but the high court said the groups could not offer an alternative map that served Texas’ political needs. In the 6-3 unsigned order, the justices also said the lower court should not have "interfered with an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections." The three liberal justices dissented.

The decision in Texas was issued on an emergency basis while the case proceeds, but the court schedule signals that the state's map will remain in place through at least the 2026 elections.