GOP bid to block blue state redistricting torn apart as judges dismantle party's arguments
Source: Raw Story
December 17, 2025 5:54PM ET
Republicans' lawsuit trying to overturn California's mid-decade redistricting map ran into a brick wall this week, as a three-judge panel grilled them intensively, with a clear indication they weren't moved by the arguments. Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, a redraw of the congressional lines that seeks to give Democrats five currently Republican-held seats.
Gov. Gavin Newsom championed the measure in response to a similar redraw by Republican lawmakers in Texas seeking to make five Democratic seats more friendly to the GOP. The California Republican Party's lawsuit argues that the map instead unlawfully uses racial criteria to draw lines, creating extra seats for Hispanic voters. But according to Courthouse News Service, a majority of the three-judge panel didn't appear to buy this.
"U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, a Barack Obama appointee, and U.S. District Wesley Hsu, a Joe Biden appointee, repeatedly expressed their incredulity with the argument that the new map that the states voters approved last month was anything other than the widely acknowledged partisan gerrymander in reaction to Texas overhauling its congressional map to add five more Republicans seats in the House," said the report.
"The two judges challenged him to explain how that made race the predominant factor when, leading up to the vote on Proposition 50, the plaintiffs had characterized it as a political power grab by the Democrats." Staton noted that voters had approved the redraw, and there was no evidence they were tricked into voting for something with motives other than the stated ones.
Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/california-gerrymandering/
cstanleytech
(28,167 posts)lark
(25,854 posts)Owens
(585 posts)but the Republicans are up in arms about the voters in California okaying it? Make it make sense
paulrevere2018
(84 posts)and still claim you care about the Constitution and the rule of law.
"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?"
Bayard
(28,358 posts)It would be hilarious if those 5 seats in TX stayed Dem.