‘X-Acto Knife Job’: Court Hears Claims Newsom Gerrymandering Maps Were Sliced By Race

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — A three-judge panel heard the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and California Republican Party’s witnesses on Monday, accusing the state’s new congressional maps of being drawn based on race.

Just a day after voters approved Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gerrymandered maps, known as Proposition 50, the state’s GOP filed a lawsuit against Newsom, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and others tied to the map. Following the initial filing, the DOJ joined the case, bringing it before 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.

The full-day hearing kicked off the DOJ and California Republicans fight against the state’s new maps. The plaintiffs, led by attorney Mark Meuser, who has been with Dhillon Law Group since 2017, first called RealClearPolitics senior elections analyst Sean Trende to the stand.

In his testimony to the court, Trende laid out his analysis of the new congressional maps, saying race was a driving factor in carving out Congressional District 13. According to the new maps, CD-13 now includes a portion of the Stockton area, which Trende described as an unusual “plume” in the new map, adding roughly 100,000 more residents to the district.

Trende offered three demonstration maps for CD-13, which he confirmed to the judges were drawn without race in mind. According to Trende’s testimony, the senior elections analyst stated that while districts can be drawn for various reasons, including, to some degree, race under the Voting Rights Act, the district 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 Meuser’s sentiment that the new district carving appeared to be an “X-Acto knife job.”

Controversy around the new maps began in Sacramento before their introduction to lawmakers. Due to the short timeline, questions regarding who would be redrawing the districts began circulating in August, as Democrats at the time deflected about the author’s identity and had not produced a final draft of the redistricted maps.

At the time of the debate, Sacramento-based redistricting expert and political data consultant Paul Mitchell, who runs Redistricting Partners, was publicly identified as the maps’ potential author. Hired by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to draft the proposed centerpiece formally submitted as Proposition 50, Mitchell confirmed to KCRA by Sept. 21 that he was the “sole” author.

While Mitchell was brought up throughout the plaintiffs’ questioning, their third witness, Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa testified the maps were not brought forward to him until Aug. 18, leaving him less than 24 hours to vote on the bill. Tangipa led a campaign against Prop 50 and filed the first lawsuit.

Tangipa recalled to the court statements made during discussions of the bill allegedly centered on race and its role in the new maps, claiming Mitchell stated they were focused on the Voting Rights Act as a “very high reason” for redistricting. The assemblymember also testified that lawmakers had been “really left in the dark” about who drew the map, calling it a flat-out “lie” that legislative language claimed the Assembly Elections Committee aided in drawing the maps.

Defense attorneys on the first day hammered witnesses on their claims that race was involved in drawing the new districts. While political partisanship aimed at boosting Democrats was largely uncontested, the defense attempted to undermine the plaintiffs’ argument that race was a motivating factor.

Defense attorneys questioned Trende’s analysis, pointing out that heavily Democratic areas were included in CD-13 and prompting him to state that “it could” be argued political alignment played a role in the map’s configuration. Breaking down multiple maps used in Trende’s report, the defense highlighted how some district lines followed highways, while others were drawn through low-density areas.

A recurring argument made to multiple witnesses, including Trende, was that the 2025 maps drafted by Mitchell were based on the 2021 congressional maps. The defense pointed out that the new districts already leaned Democrat. During Tangipa’s questioning, the defense highlighted that the Republican lawmaker produced images on his website opposing Prop 50 that showed CD-13 shifting from a purple district to deep blue, without referencing race and instead relying on past election results.

Notably, prior to the defense beginning its witnesses, the DOJ requested that a portion of Mitchell’s seven-hour deposition be entered into evidence, stating it was necessary since Mitchell would not be testifying. While the defense did not object, questions have circulated outside the courtroom as to why the author of the maps has not agreed to testify in a case centered on their drafting.

Other witnesses called by the plaintiffs included University of Texas at Dallas professor Dr. Tom Brunell and Republican Eric Ching, who previously ran for a House seat and lost in both 2022 and 2024. The court will hold its second day of hearings Tuesday, with closing arguments currently expected Wednesday.