California is currently at odds with Texas over a congressional district that could influence the power dynamics in Congress as President Donald Trump finishes his term. If the courts intervene, Texas could face allegations of racism, which might complicate its legal standing.

The party has been unlocked

Both Texas Republicans and California Democrats are pushing for a mid-term redistricting aimed at gaining advantages in the upcoming 2026 elections.

California Governor Gavin Newsom is collaborating with his party’s supermajority in Congress to implement a “trigger” law that would allow new voting maps to be drawn this fall. This initiative is a direct counter to Texas’ current redistricting efforts, supported by Trump, which could potentially flip five congressional seats from blue to red.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that judges cannot challenge partisan gerrymandering, despite acknowledging that it is at odds with democratic values.

As noted in the case of Lucho vs. Common Cause, while the court found that partisan gerrymanders clash with the First Amendment, it concluded that this does not imply that the Supreme Court is a viable solution for these issues, according to Chad Dunn, a professor and director at the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “However, that doesn’t mean the courts can’t enforce the essential parts of the Voting Rights Act,” he added.

The Voting Rights Act forbids the redrawing of districts, or “packing” and “cracking” minority groups in ways that dilute their voting power.

“Even if it’s evident that Texas is committing these acts for strictly partisan gain, that doesn’t entirely absolve them under federal law,” Dunn stated. “Texas can’t change their districts in ways that go against the Voting Rights Act.”

The traces of groundbreaking law

In 2023, a significant ruling occurred regarding redistricting in Alabama, where the Supreme Court decided that gerrymandering that discriminates against minority voters is unconstitutional, mandating the creation of a second majority-minority district in the South.

The proposed Texas map may face similar scrutiny amid accusations of “cracking” racially diverse communities while maintaining the majority of white areas. Moreover, the 2021 congressional map in Texas is already under legal examination for potential discrimination.

“The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Voting Rights Act was functioning as we expected it to two years ago,” remarked Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor and a former deputy attorney general in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Office. “This is partly why there’s an ongoing lawsuit in Texas. If Texas attempts to redraw their lines, it will likely become a focal point in the litigation.”

The foundation of the Texas plan appears to be based on a letter from Hermet Dillon, the Civil Rights Advisor at the Justice Department. The Union District encompasses multiple minority populations, none of which form a majority.

The resulting map suggested by Texas has modified all three areas.

Caltech professor J. Morgan Kousser, who recently testified regarding Texas’ 2021 redraw efforts, pointed out that the racial politics in Texas and the South present distinct challenges that are not easy to navigate.

How can one separate allowed partisanship from racial motivations?

This question may emerge as Texas’ most significant legal obstacle, according to Kousser.

“In Texas, like in many southern states, the relationship between race and party affiliation is so intertwined that it’s quite hard to distinguish between the two,” he reflected. “It almost gives a free pass to anyone who can argue that their actions are partisan rather than racially motivated.”

Currently, nine states are embroiled in lawsuits over possible violations of the Voting Rights Act, which has reached its 60-year milestone this week, with seven of those states being located in the South. For a long time, these states needed pre-clearance from the Justice Department before they could further modify their voting laws.

However, the Supreme Court dismantled that requirement in 2013 with the Shelby County v. Holder decision.

California moves forward

Newsom is advocating for California to serve as a national resistance against Texas’s initiatives.

Last week, the Democratic Caucus in California’s legislature received insights from the UCLA Voting Rights Project discussing unique maps for mid-2026 redistricting efforts.

Matt Barrett, a co-founder of the project and a political science professor, expressed that gerrymandering should be outright banned in any state.

Still, he remarked, “If other states are engaging in this, then the governor feels inclined to join the fray too.”

Barrett indicated that discussions are revolving around five congressional seats to counter Texas, but California may pursue a plan to safely create an additional seven Democratic seats.

This could involve adjustments in Orange County, San Diego, the Inland Empire, and the northern regions of the state. He mentioned that many districts, which he called 80% Democratic, might pull some of those blue voters into neighboring red districts, leading to oddly-shaped new districts.

For instance, some northern districts could stretch out to encompass the blue areas around Sacramento or the Bay Area, employing the same standards Texas has used.

The lawmakers seemed to resonate with this approach.

“We’ve long taken basic American rights for granted. It’s inappropriate not to protect them,” commented Maggie Cler (D-Sacramento), who was present at the conference.

“For me, this goes well beyond Texas,” she remarked.

State Senator Tom Ana, who has experience in district changes, mentioned feeling “uncomfortable” with the idea of gerrymandering, feeling pressured by the current circumstances. “We should respond similarly to what’s unfolding in Texas,” he emphasized.

Barrett cautioned that if California joins the redistricting fray, “there will inevitably be a lawsuit.”

Dan noted that voters could invoke California’s Voting Rights Act, contending that any new district might infringe on their rights to fair representation.

The 1965 law was “designed for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity,” he added, suggesting lawsuits could arise from scenarios where white communities are in the minority.

The potential for confusion stemming from such legal actions makes experts wary, with some interpreting the situation as a race to the bottom.

“It’s a mutual destruction,” expressed Mindy Romero, a voting expert and USC professor, commenting on the standoff between Texas and California.

Romero suggested that the ideal resolution would be for Congress to implement a nationwide ban on partisan gerrymandering. Kevin Kille (R-Locklin), who represents Sacramento’s northern district, where changes are being scrutinized, reported a lack of support.

“Like many others, Congress is neglecting a pressing national issue,” commented Richard Hasen, a political science professor at UCLA and director of the Democracy Protection Project.

“When considering congressional changes, fairness should be evaluated nationally, as actions taken in either California or Texas can have widespread repercussions,” he said.

Other things you should read:

Must see: Fed up waiting for the city, Angelenos draws his own crosswalk. Some will be permanent
What happened: Federal agents use Penske rental trucks as “Trojan horses” to raid Home Depot in Los Angeles
LA Times Special: Inside the secret poker world of high stakes that led to the murder of Highwood Hills