Closing arguments made in congressional redistricting suit

By Madeline Shannon
The Center Square

Lawyers supporting and opposing California’s congressional redistricting maps made their closing arguments in the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Los Angeles.

The case is now in the hands of a three-judge panel, led by U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton. Judges will decide whether to grant plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would keep the Proposition 50 maps from taking effect. Voters approved Proposition 50, which redrew congressional districts to pick up five Democratic House seats in the 2026 midterm election, by nearly 65% during a special election Nov. 4.

Lawyers representing the California Republican Party and the U.S. Department of Justice argued in front of the judges in favor of the preliminary injunction. The lawsuit cited race as the motivation in drawing new district boundaries.

Representing defendants, lawyers for the Democrat-led Proposition 50 said during closing arguments that, while they concede that the maps constitute a gerrymander, it is not a racial gerrymander. They said it’s a politically-partisan gerrymander.

“There is no direct evidence in this case that racial gerrymandering occurred,” said Jennifer Rosenberg, deputy attorney general for the California Department of Justice, during her closing arguments Wednesday. “Where the number of Democrats in a district decreased, the number of Hispanics also decreased. Where the number of Democrats increased, there was no pattern with respect to race, nor should there have been because this was a partisan gerrymander.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, which include Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno, and the U.S. Department of Justice, argued for three days in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles that the main person who drew the congressional district maps did racial gerrymandering to give Hispanic voters an advantage in certain right-leaning districts. The attorneys said that ran afoul of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In particular, the crux of the plaintiffs’ argument was whether racial gerrymandering was the motivation behind redrawing congressional districts such as the 13th, which includes Modesto, and the 9th, which includes Stockton. Both districts are near each other in Central California.

“The question is, was this particular district done with race as a predominant factor?” asked David Goldman, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice and one of the lawyers arguing for the plaintiffs.

“Our position here is that we believe that there is evidence that there is a racial gerrymander,” Goldman argued Wednesday in court.

Tangipa told The Center Square on Wednesday in a phone interview that he was optimistic about the outcome of the case.

“I am hopeful, and I put a lot of trust in the Department of Justice and the Dhillon Law Firm,” Tangipa said about the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs.

Tangipa also told The Center Square he expects the court will make a decision by Friday.

Rosenberg and other lawyers involved in the case declined to be interviewed after court adjourned on Wednesday.

In previous comments about the lawsuit, officials from California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the case a “loser lawsuit” designed to silence California voters.

“We are confident that the court will see what every voter knew when Prop. 50 overwhelmingly passed last month,” Newsom’s office previously wrote to The Center Square via email.

Notably absent during the three days in the courtroom was Paul Mitchell, who drew the Prop. 50 maps. According to one of the judges, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Mitchell could have appeared in court to defend the way the maps were drawn.

“Paul Mitchell didn’t show up,” Lee said in court Wednesday. “He asserted privilege over 100 times. You can’t have it both ways and say he’s not a state actor and he’s asserting legislative privilege.”

“The biggest thing that I think everybody should be asking is, if we all know that Paul Mitchell drew these maps, why is Paul Mitchell claiming legislative privilege when he’s not a legislator?” Tangipa told The Center Square Tuesday. “He can run around on podcasts and brag about drawing these maps, how he created more Latino districts, but he can’t get on the stand right now, put his hand up and swear that he’s telling the truth.”

The temporary U.S. House of Representatives district lines, which will be effect for 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, were drawn in response to Texas’ own mid-decade redistricting effort earlier this year. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court’s decision to ban use of the Texas maps, which gave Republicans a five-seat advantage in the midterm elections. The Prop. 50 election in California was meant to give Democrats a five-seat advantage in Congress to offset Texas’ Republican influence in Washington, D.C., where the GOP currently holds a narrow majority in the U.S. House.

Other legislators have taken positions on the Prop. 50 lawsuit being heard in Los Angeles this week.

“Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing Texas to use new congressional districts that were enacted without voter approval,” Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, D-Santa Cruz and chair of the Assembly Elections Committee, told The Center Square via email during the first day of the case on Monday. “By contrast, California’s process empowered voters. I am confident that the court will rule in favor of the congressional maps that California voters overwhelmingly approved.”

In November, a federal court blocked Texas’ redistricting campaign, stating that the Republican majority there violated voting rights laws by redrawing districts that discriminated against voters of color, as reported previously by The Center Square.

If the new California maps are allowed to go into effect, five Republican lawmakers from the state stand to lose their seats in the House: Kevin Kiley of Rocklin, Doug LaMalfa of Yuba City, Darrell Issa of San Diego County, Ken Calvert of Riverside County and David Valadao of Bakersfield.