From Attorney Mark Meueser on 1/31/26…
The fight to stop the State of California from using unconstitutional, racially gerrymandered maps in 2026 is now in the Supreme Court’s hands.
Last week we filed our emergency application asking the Supreme Court to issue an injunction and require the State of California to use the Commission maps for the 2026 elections.
Today we filed the final document before the Supreme Court in this phase of the case. We anticipate that the Supreme Court will issue an order sometime next week.
The State is arguing that it does not matter what the mapmaker actually did when he drew the lines. Instead, since the voters of California were voting on a political gerrymander to stick it to Trump, it means that the political intent of the voters somehow washes away any sins of the mapmaker.
If the State’s theory is accepted, it would create a blueprint for every legislature in the country: draw racial districts behind closed doors, submit them to the voters, and then claim the Constitution no longer applies. That would convert the Fourteenth Amendment from a constitutional command into a procedural hurdle that can be bypassed by a ballot measure. This case is not just about California, it is about whether constitutional limits still restrain the political branches when elections are at stake.
Today’s filing counters this argument. We argue that Supreme Court precedents hinges upon the actions of the mapmaker, not the intentions of those who finally approve the map. We argue that over sixty years ago, the Supreme Court was faced with a similar situation and the Court ruled that it does not matter if the voters approve an unconstitutional redistricting plan, if the plan is unconstitutional, the Court must strike it down.
Finally we reiterated to the Court that the direct evidence which includes statements by the legislature and the mapmaker proves that race was a major factor in how the Proposition 50 lines were drawn. In addition, we did not just rely upon direct evidence, but our experts provided circumstantial evidence to show that some of the lines drawn could not have been drawn if politics was the only factor, that race was used, and that racial line-drawing renders Proposition 50 unconstitutional.
Now that the case is fully briefed, we wait and see what happens next.
_____
Former State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth provided some analysis…
What the State of California is arguing in federal court:
The State of California drew maps based on racial bias, but because the people of California approved it, that racial bias should be excused, because, well racism is ok if it’s ‘majority rule’.
The State of California is arguing that government imposed racism is cool if the majority of the people support it.
Sound familiar? That was often the legal defense of racist laws for years in the old South and it was rooted out and destroyed by the 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act and several other laws and decisions decades ago.