California urges Supreme Court to allow new congressional map

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Roll Call

Posted January 29, 2026 at 5:19pm


California officials, Democrats and civil rights groups told the Supreme Court on Thursday the state should be able to use its new congressional map in the midterm elections this fall, arguing the lines were drawn for political rather than racial reasons. The filings were in response to an appeal from the state Republican Party and Republican state officials, who have asked the justices to set aside a 2-1 lower court decision that allowed the state to use the map.

That ruling found the evidence of gerrymandering in favor of the state’s Hispanic and Latino communities was “exceptionally weak.” The Republican challengers asked for a decision by Feb. 9, a deadline for candidates to submit petitions to run in races under the new map. The Trump administration filed a brief last week supporting the emergency appeal, which the justices are teed up to decide in the coming days.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in its filing defended the map as “an openly partisan effort to aid Democratic Party candidates in California as a counterbalance to similar efforts by the Republican Party in Texas,” noting the Supreme Court previously has allowed that kind of partisan gerrymandering.

All three filings Thursday leaned heavily on the fact that the state’s election process has already started, making it too late for courts to intervene. California officials argued in their filing that tossing the map would “wreak havoc” on the congressional primary campaigns, since candidates have started to collect signatures and the state starts counting mail ballots in May. “To be clear, any changes to the district boundaries at this late stage — even changes to two districts — would be quite burdensome for state and local officials and would threaten interference with the orderly administration of the upcoming election,” the state officials wrote.

Read more: https://rollcall.com/2026/01/29/california-urges-supreme-court-to-allow-new-congressional-map/

[ancianita]

1. I don't understand why the SCOTUS keeps hearing redistricting cases.

Partisan Gerrymandering (2019): In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are "political questions" beyond the reach of federal courts, effectively allowing state legislatures to draw maps for political advantage.

If politically motivated Trump can ask TX to add four Republican districts, a political motive, then CA's governor should be able to ask the people of CA.

If the SCOTUS overrules lower courts' rulings on California won't be the first time it has shown its bias. The SCOTUS frequently overrules lower court decisions originating from California, particularly from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a high reversal rate, with 10 cases originating from that circuit in the 2023-2024 term alone.
Notable recent examples include overturning California-based restrictions on immigration enforcement in 2025 and addressing landmark cases with California roots, such as Whitney v. California (1927), which was later overruled.

Immigration Enforcement (2025): The Supreme Court lifted restrictions imposed by lower California courts that had temporarily restrained ICE from using certain,, criticized tactics (such as profiling based on race/language) in Southern California.
Environmental Law (2023): The Supreme Court allowed the overturning of a Berkeley ordinance banning natural gas in new construction, siding against a city-level regulation.
Criminal Procedure/Search and Seizure: Robbins v. California (1981) was overruled just 11 months later by United States v. Ross (1982), marking a rapid reversal.

The "too close to elections" argument is probably what Democrats could be using, since it's worked for Repubs in the past.

BUT when it comes to Republican states, The SCOTUS has supported state-drawn district maps primarily by allowing maps to stand during ongoing litigation using the "Purcell principle" (avoiding changes close to elections), refusing to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases, and recently allowing challenged maps to remain in place. Key examples include upholding South Carolina's map in 2024 and allowing Alabama's map for 2022.

South Carolina (2024): The Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to use a congressional map that a lower court had previously ruled was a racial gerrymander, enabling its use for the 2024 election cycle.
Alabama (2022): In Merrill v. Milligan, the Court stayed a lower court decision that had deemed Alabama’s map likely in violation of the Voting Rights Act, allowing the map to be used for the 2022 midterms.

Florida (2025): The Florida Supreme Court, upholding a map defended by the governor, was left in place, reflecting a trend of allowing state-level decisions on maps.

While the Court sometimes allows maps to stand, it also invalidated Alabama's map in 2023 for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The SCOTUS maga six, despite the appearance of fairness, are in it for RW Repubs to win it, imo.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-hammers-away-democracy

[BumRushDaShow]

2. So far, as far as I know

an emergency stay was sent to the SCOTUS (where Kagan is responsible for emergencies in the 9th Circuit) and that happened on January 20, 2026.

It's now been over a week and Kagan has NOT put in place an "Administrative stay pending..." yet. I think all the responses to this request were due by yesterday (subject of the OP being the state's response).

Here is the timeline for this - https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/tangipa-v-newsom/

Am hoping that Kagan gets the word that they don't have enough "interested" to accept it and will bat this away.

[ancianita]

3. I see. I forgot to check on the justice charged with the 9th. Thanks. Yes, I hope she convinces the rest.

[wolfie001]

4. Those 6 POS are only vying for tRUMP

I have a bad feeling about this. She should cite their Texas ruling and say no.