ANS -- on the gerrymandering situation

Found this explanation of the redistricting/ gerrymandering situation.  

--Kim

Marlene McCall

noteSordps7ut42896cf46i78gmc50179m1l49uahaia10l084lla2m21010 ·

ON THE GERRYMANDERING FRONT

Yesterday (November 18, 2025), a panel of federal judges blocked Texas from using its newly redrawn congressional map, which would have created five additional Republican-leaning U.S. House seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The court's 2-1 ruling found substantial evidence that the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, despite the Texas Republicans' claim that the map was redrawn for other reasons. The court determined that while political considerations are a factor in redistricting, "substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map" in a way that diluted the voting power of black and hispanic residents. The judges also noted that the Trump administration had explicitly directed the legislature to redistrict on the basis of race, opening the door for the court's finding.

Texas will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in California, the Democrat-friendly map recently approved by voters (via Prop 50) passed through formal channels. Something that a lot of California voters may not know -- I certainly didn't know it until I read it just now -- is that the original language for Prop 50 contained a "triggering clause". Under that trigger language, California's redistricting map would "become operative only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map that takes effect after Aug. 1, 2025, and before Jan. 1, 2031, and such redistricting is not required by a federal court order." However, that triggering clause was removed from the final version of Prop 50. I haven't been able to determine why, and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out, but here's what I think seems reasonable. The CA Democrats wanted to make it clear to voters that the mid-decade map redrawing was being proposed ONLY in reaction to what the GOP was doing in Texas and other states. In other words, they were nervous about potential NO votes from Democrats. Then, when it became apparent that Prop 50 was likely to pass, but knowing that redistricting might very well take place in other states, they decided to omit the trigger clause. That's just my conjecture; I haven't read that anywhere.

It is unlikely that the new CA maps will be affecting by this ruling. I will paste in a comment below an explanation as to why this is so, writen by Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Of course, the DOJ has sued, claiming that in the new California map, Latino demographics and racial considerations were predominant. However, several challenges against the Prop. 50 map have already been raised and none have prevailed to date.

So, if nothing changes, Texas won't have their extra 5 GOP seats, but California will have their 5 extra DNC seats.

I know too much to allow myself to gloat, but I say to our governor, whom I think was the main political force behind Prop 50, "Well played!"

Marlene McCall

According to Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the ruling invalidating Texas maps would not have an effect on California's redistricting efforts given the facts that were considered by the court.

"Texas maps were struck down by the court based on how Texas actually drew the lines, and that has very little to do with how California drew their lines," Levitt told CBS News.

In the Texas ruling, in a 2-1 decision, federal judges found "substantial evidence" that "Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map." The court considered a letter that the Justice Department sent to Texas lawmakers in July stating the state's 2021 map was "unconstitutional" because it included four congressional districts where no ethnic group had an outright majority, concluding that the state must therefore dismantle and redraw its lines.

The court found this to be a "legally incoherent assertion."

"California didn't do anything like that," Levitt said. "California drew districts overwhelmingly for partisan reasons and there's actually nothing that the litigants in California have pointed to that indicates that California focused predominantly or excessively based on race."