I suppose this was inevitable.
Gov. Gavin Newsom
The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.
The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Donald Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who’s seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.
“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”
Newsom spokesperson Brandon Richards said in a statement, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”
The legal move against heavily Democratic California marks the first time the Justice Department has sued over a flurry of unusual, mid-decade House map revisions across the country that were drawn to maximize partisan advantage in advance of next year’s elections.
[…]
The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Hispanic voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.
“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.
I only noted the filing of the original lawsuit in last week’s Sunday linkdump, because I didn’t take any of it seriously. I still don’t – the whole thing is ludicrous, given how few actual rules apply to the drawing of political maps these days – but the stakes have been raised. But to focus again on the ridiculousness of it all, here’s Daily Kos with another angle.
As a bonus, California Republicans had even hired the Dhillon Law Group to handle their suit! Yes, as in the firm founded by Harmeet Dhillon, who now heads the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ—a gig she got because of her zeal to suppress votes.
Well, not white votes. Or Republican votes.
The DOJ’s motion to intervene makes sure to note that Dhillon is recused. Even this DOJ knows a court might take issue with that. But forgive us if we don’t take too seriously the notion that Dhillon would be entirely walled off from this suit. This is not a DOJ known for its ethical behavior. Rather, it’s a retribution machine run by people who will give President Donald Trump anything he wants.
The allegations in the California GOP’s complaint—and the reason for the zeal with which the DOJ hopped in—boil down to this: When California mapmakers discussed drawing districts, they discussed complying with the Voting Rights Act and creating Latino-majority districts. Therefore, it violates the 14th and 15th amendments as a racial gerrymander.
Would it surprise you to know that any allegations about this are vague at best? As Matt Barreto, a Democratic pollster who teaches political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, put it, “This Republican lawsuit is saying just because you said the word ‘Latino’ or the word ‘Asian,’ your map should be thrown out.”
Unfortunately, we’re all aware that for both the DOJ and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, even the sketchiest invocation of race may be enough.
Never overlook the grift possibilities, these guys are always open for business. We’ll just have to see how this plays out. NBC News and a bunch of others have more.
LATINO DISTRICT SEMANTICS
Latino is not a race, so how can there be a racial gerrymander?
Additionally, Latino is grammatically the masculine (Latino vs. Latina).
So, a Latino district is literally a male district. In English, however, the word district is neutrum (it). In Spanish it’s masculine: El distrito.
Analogous to Washington, DC, the capital of Mexico used to be known as Distrito Federal (DF). On 29 January 2016, however, it ceased to be the Federal District (DF) and is now officially known as Ciudad de México (CDMX). So, they went from masculine (el distrito) to feminine (la ciudad). Fittingly, Mexico also went from a presidente (m) to a presidenta (f): Claudia Sheinbaum, who previously served as Mexico City mayor (alcalde (m) -> alcaldesa (f)).
Taking presidenta Sheinbaum as an example, what is she, what with a German, rather than a Spanish surname?
Suppose she had a naturalized relative in California or Texas sharing her surname.
How would the redistricting bean counters classify her? Could such person be the lead plaintiff in redistricting litigation. On which side?
How would he/she prove that he/she is Latino/Latina?