Federal Judges Give Green Light To California’s Gerrymandered Maps

A three-judge federal panel on Wednesday upheld California’s new redistricting maps approved by Proposition 50, rejecting arguments from Republicans and the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) that the policy racially gerrymandered in favor of Hispanics.

After weeks of waiting for the federal panel’s decision on the major case, the judges released a 117-page file revealing in a 2-1 vote that they denied the plaintiffs’ arguments that the maps were drawn to favor Hispanics in certain districts. After the lawsuit was quickly filed after election results rolled in, the case was brought forward to U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee and U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu to request a temporary restraining order by Dec. 19.

Within the judge’s decision both Hsu and Staton vote in favor of upholding the proposition, with Lee dissenting. The three-day long evidentiary hearing had nine witnesses, including six experts testify to the court, along with the judges reviewing a record of over 500 exhibits totaling thousands of pages.

“We find that Challengers have failed to show that racial gerrymandering occurred, and we conclude that there is no basis for issuing a preliminary injunction. Our conclusion probably seems obvious to anyone who followed the news in the summer and fall of 2025,” the filing states.

“Indeed, the record contains a mountain of statements reflecting the partisan goals of Proposition 50, from which Challengers have culled a molehill of statements showing race consciousness on the part of the mapmaker and certain legislators,” the filing added. “But that is not enough to make the necessary showing that the relevant decisionmakers— here, the electorate—enacted the new map for racial reasons. Nor have Challengers offered alternative maps that would prove otherwise. Significantly, they provide no alternative map for any congressional district except one: District 13. And as to that district, the alternative maps they do offer are either materially indistinguishable from the Proposition 50 Map or do not meet other redistricting goals.”

The hearing began on Dec. 15, 2025, kicking off with the panel of judge’s hearing from one of the plaintiffs witnesses, RealClearPolitics senior elections analyst