OAN Staff Cory Hawkins and Brooke Mallory
3:59 PM – Wednesday, January 21, 2026
California Republicans and associated challengers filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Tuesday, seeking to block the state’s newly redrawn congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Primary Leaders of the Challenge
- Corrin Rankin, Chairwoman of the California Republican Party.
- David Tangipa, California Republican Assemblymember.
- Harmeet Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group: Although she currently serves as the DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, her firm is also representing the California GOP in the SCOTUS appeal.
- James Gallagher, California Republican Assembly Minority Leader.
California’s progressive legal defense has argued that the congressional districts were drawn primarily for partisan advantage, rather than on the basis of race.
However, it is worth noting that by characterizing the map as a political gerrymander instead of a racial one, California Democrats are relying on Supreme Court precedent holding that claims of partisan gerrymandering fall largely outside the scope of federal court review, unlike racial gerrymandering claims, which are subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.
Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and other lefty officials in the Golden State have also defended the move as a “counter” to Republican redistricting efforts in states like Texas.
The contested map is projected to put several Republican-held seats at risk, potentially netting Democrats up to five additional seats. While Republicans currently hold nine of California’s 52 districts, analysts suggest that number could shrink significantly if the new boundaries remain in place for the upcoming election cycle.
On the other hand, Republicans have countered that the Democrat-drawn map constitutes an illegal racial gerrymander, arguing that it was clearly designed to boost Latino voting power rather than reflect permissible partisan goals. They say that this violates the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law, the 15th Amendment prohibition on racial discrimination in voting, and the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Nonetheless, a federal court rejected those arguments last week.
Republicans had pointed to increased Latino voting power in certain districts, but the court held that outcomes alone “don’t prove” racial intent. The judge stated that there must be clear evidence that lawmakers used race as the primary sorting mechanism, not merely that minority voters benefited as a result of partisan line-drawing.
California Republicans have since highlighted statements from the map’s consultant, Paul Mitchell, reiterating that the redistricting process prioritized racial demographics to “bolster” Latino-majority districts. Their supporting documents indicated that legislators focused heavily on racial data while neglecting standard political metrics.
The boundaries appear manipulated to maintain a Hispanic citizen voting-age population (HCVAP) between 52% and 54%, intentionally bypassing “Whiter” areas to pull in specific Latino neighborhoods.
Expert analysis also suggests that alternative maps could have achieved similar Democrat gains through more compact districts without relying so heavily on these strict racial thresholds.
Statements highlighted by Republicans
- The “Number One” Priority: Republicans frequently cite a statement where Mitchell said the “number one thing that [he] first started thinking about” when drafting the map was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles.”
- Targeting District 13: GOP attorneys highlighted Mitchell’s goal to bolster Latino voting strength in Congressional District 13, Central Valley. They argued he intentionally bypassed “heavily Democrat White neighborhoods” near Stockton to capture “less Democrat Latino areas” to meet a specific racial threshold.
- Progressive Bragging: In his dissenting opinion, conservative Judge Kenneth Lee noted that Mitchell had “publicly boasted” to outside groups, specifically Hispanas Organized for Political Equality (HOPE), that the new map would increase the voting power of Latino residents.
“Over 30 years ago, Paul Mitchell was an energetic community college student who smelled of patchouli oil and wore hair so long he could ‘tuck it into his back pocket.’ Last week, he became the most powerful person in California politics,” Politico said of Mitchell last year.
The legal crux of the GOP challenge rests on the Voting Rights Act.
Republicans argue that even if the mapmaker’s use of race was deemed intentional, the state lacks a constitutionally “compelling interest” to justify it — such as evidence of racially polarized voting that prevents Latino voters from electing their preferred candidates.
Without that showing, they contend, the state is improperly relying on voter approval and partisan goals to shield what they describe as racial line-drawing, in violation of Supreme Court equal-protection precedents, including Cooper v. Harris.
Despite these legal hurdles, Prop 50 passed with 64.4% of the vote in the November 2025 special election. It authorizes the new map for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles, with the state scheduled to return to an independent commission following the 2030 census.
After filing an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, challengers are seeking a stay by February 9th to prevent the new map from being finalized for the June 2nd primary. They argue an immediate injunction is necessary to avoid the chaos of candidates filing for districts that could later be ruled unconstitutional.
Without intervention, the state is set to finalize all congressional nominations by the March 6th deadline under the contested boundaries.
“Because we find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming, challengers are not entitled to preliminary relief on any of their claims,” the court said in a 2-1 decision.
“Our conclusion probably seems obvious to anyone who followed the news in the summer and fall of 2025,” the ruling stated.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
What do YOU think? Click here to jump to the comments!
Sponsored Content Below
