Prop. 50 sets off a chain of political and legal maneuvers

from Dan WaltersCalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

When California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 50 on Tuesday, they set in motion political and possibly legal maneuvers that will ultimately determine whether its stated goal of adding five or more seats to Democrats in Congress becomes a reality.

The first is a political battle between politicians from both parties to determine who will run where in next year’s congressional elections.

Aspiring Democrats are lining up to run in newly redrawn districts, some of which are tailored to favor certain candidates.

The the most obvious example is an area that stretches from the heavily Republican northeast corner of the state to the northern suburbs of San Francisco, seemingly tailor-made for Mike McGuirethe outgoing president of the state Senate. In creating this district, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature sought to unseat Republican Doug LaMalfa, who now represents northeastern California in Congress.

The plan, if successful, would reduce Republican districts from nine to four, meaning that in some areas, such as inland Southern California, incumbent Republicans would be forced to either retire or compete with each other for survival.

The political impacts of Prop. 50 depend on the assumption that the maps ratified by the ballot measure are actually valid for the following year’s election. Although they are likely to be used, there is an opportunity for the courts to intervene.

Coincidentally, the pro-Democrat gerrymander of Prop. 50 and the recent pro-Republican gerrymander in Texas occur just when The US Supreme Court is weighing an important case including the federal Voting Rights Act. Its outcome can affect both.

The Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1965 to strengthen the civil rights of minorities, especially blacks in the southern states, prohibits any voting procedure “which has the effect of denying or restricting the right of any citizen of the United States to vote because of race or color.”

Although the law prohibited exclusionary voting laws, it was widely interpreted as requiring the creation of districts specifically to increase the chances of racial groups electing representatives from their communities.

California’s independent redistricting commission, in plans drawn up after the 2010 and 2020 censuses, adopted this interpretation, and the newly redistricted districts do as well.

However, the interpretation is being challenged before the Supreme Court in a case from Louisiana, and its conservative members, the majority, have indicated both during arguments and in past decisions that they may consider it racially discriminatory against white voters.

“This Court has decided that race-based affirmative action in higher education must end,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his brief in the Louisiana case. The same is true, he said, of using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts likely to elect black or Hispanic candidates.

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is overseeing Tuesday’s vote and may argue that California’s new congressional maps are discriminatory and should be put on hold until the Supreme Court rules.

Trump appeared to hint at an intervention in a Truth Social post on Tuesday denouncing Proposition 50 as a “GIANT SCAM” and said mail-in ballots, by far the most popular form of voting, disenfranchised Republicans and were “subject to very serious legal and criminal scrutiny.” He closed with “STAY TUNED!”

In 2001, the threat of interference from the administration of Republican President George W. Bush thwarted the California legislature’s plans for a pro-Democrat rigger, forcing them to make a deal with Republicans on maps that maintained the partisan status quo.

Even a brief interruption could undermine what Newsom and the Legislature are seeking in Proposition 50, as the candidate Filing for congressional districts begins on December 19and if the new maps are in legal limbo, the current districts will be used for the 2026 election.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.