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 Sean Trende. The analyst broke down for the court on how he believed race was a driving factor in carving out Congressional District 13, a Stockton area district, based on his analysis.

Trende offered three demonstration maps for CD-13, which he confirmed to the judges were drawn without race in mind, adding to his testimony that while he believed districts could be drawn for various reasons, CD-13 appears to cut heavily into Hispanic areas while bypassing Democratic ones. When comparing his demonstration maps to the new maps, Trende noted that there were options available without what he described as a “weird racial reach,” adding he agreed with leading GOP attorney Mark Meuser’s sentiment that the new district carving appeared to be an “X-Acto knife job.”

By the hearing’s second day, however, another set of experts brought forward by the defendants torched the GOP and Trende’s claims of racially gerrymandering the new maps. One of the defense’s key witnesses Dr. Bernard Grofman argued that Trende’s assessment that CD-13 was carved to include Hispanic voters while leaving out some heavily Democratic areas was “nonsense.” Instead Grofman argued that the only way to make CD-13 a strong Democratic seat would be to reach into the Stockton area while excluding some portions to ensure the neighboring district, Congressional District 9, also remained a Democratic stronghold.

With the hearing holding final arguments later in the week, it had been unclear how fast the judges would make their decision on the new maps. Despite his fellow colleagues upholding Prop 50, Judge Lee included his dissent in the filing stating that the Democratic supermajority in the state “wanted to curry favor with Latino groups and voters—and to prevent Latino voters from drifting away from the party.” Lee additionally called out the maps’ author Paul Mitchell and his public statements that confirmed “race was a predominant factor in devising” in CD-13, which was also testified about by Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa.

“This court should have acted to prevent California from following an unlawful path that will inevitably sow racial divisions and upset the melting pot that makes California great. I respectfully dissent,” Lee wrote.

Following the release of the decision, both California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta released a statement claiming Republicans had been attempting to silence the voters will after they approved the measure in November 2025.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed. California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 – to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas – and that is exactly what this court concluded,” Newsom wrote.