In the wake of the recent passage of Governor Gavin Newsom's Election Rigging Act, the California Republican Party and 19 individual plaintiffs have launched a legal challenge against the Governor and Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeks to invalidate the Proposition 50 maps, alleging that they contravene the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that the maps were designed "based on race, specifically to favor Hispanic voters, without cause or evidence to justify it."
According to RedState, the plaintiffs are seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the state from using the maps while the case is being adjudicated. Attorney Mark Meuser of the Dhillon Law Group, who spoke at a press conference, anticipates that the injunction will be heard in the coming weeks.
He also suggested that the losing side will likely have the opportunity to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, but a decision would need to be made before December 19, the date on which candidates can pull papers.
The lawsuit has been filed by the Dhillon Law Group, Assemblyman David Tangipa, 18 California Voters, and the California Republican Party. The plaintiffs argue that Democrats in the California legislature and the consultant paid by the DCCC to draw the maps have publicly stated that the Prop 50 maps were designed to "empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice."
They created two new districts, which they characterized as Voting Rights Act districts. However, according to Meuser, they did not adhere to the VRA's requirements for drawing race-based districts, nor did they provide any evidence that the current maps violated the VRA.
The complaint further alleges that the consultant who drew the lines first added a Latino District that the Independent Citizens [Commission] had previously eliminated. He then altered the lines of a district to make it a Latino-influenced district by ensuring its voting age population was 35 percent Latino.
The plaintiffs argue that while compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) may justify race-based districting under current law, the Supreme Court requires states to prove that they adopted the new district lines based on evidence that a minority race usually could not elect its preferred candidates due to the concerted opposition of voters of a white majority race.
The plaintiffs contend that Californias Hispanic voters have successfully elected their preferred candidates to both state and federal office, without being thwarted by a racial majority voting as a bloc. They argue that this is unsurprising because Latinos are the most numerous demographic in the state and California voters nearly always vote based on their party affiliation, not their race.
In response to the lawsuit, Governor Newsom's office issued a statement that read: Good luck, losers. Newsom's response has been characterized as both arrogant and false. While the lawsuit does involve the Dhillon Law Group, which was founded by Harmeet Dhillon, she has since left the firm to join Trump's Department of Justice. Despite Newsom's confidence, his track record in federal court, especially against Dhillon Law, or the Center for American Liberty, which Dhillon also founded, is not particularly strong.
The fate of Proposition 50 was also discussed on CBS Los Angeles by Los Angeles County Republican Party Chair Roxanne Hoge and Sara Sadhwani, chair of the California Citizens' Redistricting Commission. Sadhwani, a longtime left-wing activist, made deranged comments about President Trump and Proposition 50. However, Hoge maintained her composure and effectively countered Sadhwani's arguments.
The lawsuit represents a significant challenge to Governor Newsom's Election Rigging Act and the Proposition 50 maps. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the electoral landscape in California.
The plaintiffs' argument that the maps were drawn based on race, without sufficient evidence to justify it, raises serious questions about the fairness and legality of the redistricting process. It remains to be seen how the courts will rule on this contentious issue.
Login