Front Page  »  

Justice Department sues Newsom over alleged race-based redistricting

November 13, 2025

By KAREN VELIE

The Justice Department announced yesterday it filed legal action against California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s newly adopted redistricting plan enacted through Proposition 50.

Newsom argued Prop. 50 was a needed response to Republican promoted gerrymandering in Texas and other conservative states. The passage of Prop. 50 allowed Democrats to replace congressional lines drawn by the state’s independent commission with new ones in an attempt to switch five Republican seats to Democratic.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

The DOJ lawsuit alleges Prop. 50 mandates racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Evidence, including that in the legislative record and public statements, indicate that the legislature created a new map in which Latino demographics and racial considerations predominated, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

“The race-based gerrymandered maps passed by the California legislature are unlawful and unconstitutional,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California. “The U.S. Department of Justice is moving swiftly to prevent these illegal maps from tainting our upcoming elections. California is free to draw congressional maps, but they may not be drawn based on race.”

On Nov. 5, a group of California voters filed suit against a congressional map adopted by the California legislature arguing it is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50,” said Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond.”

The DOJ’s motion to intervene in Tangipa, et al. v. Newsom, et al. is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

 


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Newsome is fighting fire with fire. Trump’s blatant attempt to steal the election next year for control of Congress is being met with like action. The difference is that Texas did by legislative fiat, while California did it by popular vote. Which is more democratic and ethical?


-41

Texas did it by Constitutional requirements. California did it by a King.


8

Texas. Was a bankrupt failed state that joined the Union out of fear and desperation.


-1

You know nothing about Texas or Texans. But if you go there and spout such nonsense, you’ll rapidly be enthusiastically enlightened by pretty much every Texan in reach.


-2

Texas vs. California: How They Entered the Union

TEXAS (Annexed 1845)

Status before statehood:

An independent country (the Republic of Texas, 1836–1845).

Severe financial distress: carrying large public debts, unable to secure long-term loans, currency depreciating, unable to defend its borders without foreign help.

Facing constant military tension with Mexico, which refused to recognize Texas independence.

Texas leaders openly courted multiple powers (U.S., Britain, France) but the Republic remained militarily weak and fiscally insolvent.

Why the U.S. accepted Texas:

Expansionist ideology (“Manifest Destiny”).

Southern slaveholding interests wanted a large new slave state.

Fear that Britain would pull Texas into its orbit as a buffer against U.S. expansion, or even abolish slavery there—giving Britain moral leverage.

How it joined:

Annexation, not a territorial process.

Congress used a joint resolution, not a treaty (because the treaty route had failed).

Texas entered as a fully-fledged state, not a territory, keeping control of its public lands (used to pay down its debts).

Overall character of entry:

Texas joined the U.S. because it needed financial, military, and political survival. Annexation was essentially a strategic merger where the U.S. absorbed a failing but geopolitically valuable republic.

CALIFORNIA (Admitted 1850)

Status before statehood:

A U.S. military-occupied territory after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848).

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) ceded California to the U.S.

Not independent; not economically distressed; not a “state-seeking rescue” like Texas.

Catalyst for statehood:

The Gold Rush (1848–1850) created an explosive population boom and economic windfall.

Massive influx of Americans and immigrants overshadowed the small Mexican and Indigenous populations almost overnight.

Local inhabitants drafted a state constitution quickly because they:

Wanted stable law and order

Wanted to prevent slavery (major political issue)

Feared military rule or a long territorial period

Why the U.S. accepted California:

Enormous mineral wealth—strategically and economically vital.

U.S. leadership feared European powers (esp. Britain) could try to influence the Pacific coast during transition.

Admitting California helped keep the balance as part of the Compromise of 1850 (free vs. slave states issue).

How it joined:

California skipped the entire territorial maturation process.

Entered directly as a state due to:

Rapid population growth

Military governance concerns

Its economic importance

Overall character of entry:

California’s admission was driven by opportunity and national strategy, not desperation. It was a wealthy, rapidly growing territory the U.S. rushed to formalize before instability or foreign influence could threaten control.

The core comparison in one sentence

Texas joined because it was a debt-ridden, militarily exposed, diplomatically vulnerable republic that needed the U.S. to survive.

California joined because it was a newly conquered, resource-rich territory the U.S. wanted to secure as fast as possible.


0

Texas defeated Mexico to win their independence and become a sovereign nation. It defended its borders itself, and had so many volunteers from the US that it couldn’t keep track of them. California pretty much whored herself to an expansionist USA. The economic distress you falsely attribute to the Republic of Texas describes California today. Texas kept its land upon annexation CA didn’t. And CA pulled some pathetic little 1 week republic thing in their bid to enter the union as a full state rather than going through the territorial process. Greed, dept, and desperation much better describes CA than TX – them and now.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas


-2

Try offering up a source that I can’t personally edit. Give me a half hour and your source will say something else.

Wikipedia is a reliable as TikTok.


Texas did not keep its land. It cannot leave the Republic. It holds no special status as a state.

CA continues to send more Federal dollars out than it receives back. Texas comes close, but still takes more Federal dollars in than it gives out. A welfare state since its inception.


-1

They did indeed keep their public lands, and retired their debt by swapping territorial land while keeping core national (Republic of Texas) land. That land filled state coffers with vast petroleum wealth, which they used to build a great state.


CA is the most indebted state in the union, TX is like 23rd. TX has no state income tax. CA has the highest gas cost in the union and one of the highest COLAs; young folks can’t even afford housing here, but can afford wonderful homes in TX, gas for their cars to commute to their jobs, food for their table, and nice vacation/entertainment budgets. CA has illegals scraping by on menial jobs n state handouts, welfare rats in inner city ghettos, homeless on every corner, and morons like you that can’t see past their own flawed ideology while sniffing dismissively at those doing better than them, your failure to acknowledge problems and effectively address them, like the current administration is doing, is the hallmark of failed liberalism; “there is no problem, it can’t be fixed, and it ain’t that bad”. Losers…


0

Once Trump is impeached and removed maybe the government can get back to work rebuilding America after the dumpster fire of trumps term.

They can pass legislation that makes gerrymandering illegal. Simple as that.


-55

Newscum’s big plan. Racial-based districts with mail-in voting. Permanent left-wing government. He’s a genius. LOL!


23

This is the same basis that Biden sued Texas and won with, forcing them to redraw their maps


19

I’m wondering why gerrymandering is OK in Texas but not in California.


-18

or Illinois for at least a decade?


27

Or any other state that Trump is putting pressure on the Republican governors

to do what they did in Texas.

At least in California it got voted on, can’t say the same for Texas or any of the other states that are looking at it.


-22

Exactly. And then they downvote you without even trying to argue about it. “Anything we want is okay, but anything you want is both communism and socialism despite those being mutually exclusive. And anything that contradicts what we have chosen to believe without proof is fake news and a hoax.”


-19

Gerrymandering done the way they did it in Texas, violated the state Constitution. Also, California added a fair and impartial citizens committee to the state Constitution, to draw districts with no political favoritism.


Texas followed their law. California, did not.


6

Again with the BS? Say it again and it’s still not true.

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/texas-officially-walks-back-justification-for-redistricting-throws-doj-under-bus/


-3

An absolute power grab by Newsom and the radical left. Anything the radical left can do to to go directly against DJT. What are all the libtard clowns going to do in 2028 when DJT is no longer president. TDS is wasting away good energy and effort they could be using to fight for GOOD policies for the people they represent.


Trump Derangement Syndrom is only getting worse on the left with every success that DJT and his team have.


Gerrymandering takes away representation of the people no matter what side of the fence is doing it!!!!


Hopefully this gets stopped and the the small group of people getting railroaded into BLUE districts still have a tiny bit of representation in Washington.


Oh yeah don’t let me forget, THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S. WILL NEVER VOTE GAVIN NEWSOM IN AS PRESIDENT!!!!! Not after what he’s done to ruin California.


38

You are part of the Trump maga cult. Get help.

Blink theee times if you are being held against your will


-33

Great rebuttal FLOPSIDE!!! You spout off that “I am part of the Trump maga cult” because I state common sense truth that you obviously cant handle. You have no better rebuttal?


Stupid me, why would Iask that… I should expect nothing less out of you Mr. FLOPSIDE. Typical libtard response with NO valid point to add to the discussion.


Typical-so Typical. Oh Yeah, I blinked “theee” times!


Proof read your posts sweetheart!!!


-2

I knew this prop 50 would only cause legal action… big bucks for lawyers and no action either way…


33