The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed California to use a new congressional map that will undermine President Donald Trump’s effort to keep control of the House of Representatives, marking a defeat for Republicans who claimed one of the new districts was redesigned based on race rather than politics.
There were no noted dissents, and the court did not explain its reasoning.
The emergency appeal from state Republicans was the latest to reach the high court tied to an ongoing arms-race-style mid-decade redistricting that Trump initiated to keep the House after the midterm elections.
California redrew its map, which puts five GOP-held seats in play, as a response to a partisan redistricting in Texas that benefited Republicans.
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, don’t get involved in cases dealing with partisan gerrymanders. But state Republicans had argued that racial considerations motivated the redrawing of one district that covers portions of the Central Valley between San Francisco and Fresno. Those allegations were based largely on comments by a mapmaking consultant, Paul Mitchell, who said publicly that he intended to “ensure that Latino districts” were “bolstered” in the 13th Congressional District.
The state’s “professed purpose was to pick up five seats in Congress for the Democratic Party to offset the five seats the Republican Party gained in Texas,” California Republicans told the Supreme Court in their emergency appeal. “But those officials harbored another purpose as well: maximizing Latino voting strength to shore up Latino support for the Democratic Party.”
The map was ultimately approved by state residents in a referendum in which 64% of voters backed the plan.
But the Republicans challenging the map faced a seemingly insurmountable hurdle. Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court rejected a strikingly similar argument made by civil rights and other groups challenging Texas’ map. In early December, the court sided with Texas in that challenge, permitting the state’s map to be used in this year’s election.
Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote in a concurrence that it was “indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” His opinion was joined by two other conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
State GOP officials and the state Republican Party sued to block the map’s use and the Trump administration joined that litigation. But the administration declined to bring its own emergency appeal to the Supreme Court and instead filed a brief supporting the state officials’ appeal.
California Republicans had asked the Supreme Court for a decision by February 9 – the start of the state’s candidate filing period. But Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic opponents noted that the justices have long admonished courts not to change state voting rules close to an election. The state’s primary is set for June 2 and election officials told the court they would begin processing mail-in ballots in May.
States generally redraw their House districts once a decade to correspond with a new census. Trump has pushed GOP states to try to eke an advantage out of those maps now so that Democrats will have a harder time capturing control of the House during his final two years in the White House.
Under a 2019 Supreme Court precedent, federal courts no longer review cases alleging partisan gerrymanders. However, courts do still review claims of racial gerrymanders. And because race and politics are often so closely intertwined in mapmaking, several suits have required judges to decide whether disputed maps were drawn based on racial discrimination or partisan advantage.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel in California concluded that the redrawing was a political effort and declined to block the new map’s use.
“We conclude that it was exactly as one would think: it was partisan,” the court wrote. “The record contains a mountain of statements reflecting the partisan goals of Proposition 50.”
The two judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents. A third judge, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. That judge called attention to public statements from the mapmaker about efforts to ensure Latino districts are “bolstered.”
“We know race likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell, the mapmaker who drew the congressional redistricting map adopted by the California state legislature,” wrote US Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee.
