When the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled Friday morning invalidating Virginia's redistricting initiative, my second thought (after excitement for my friends in Virginia) was how disappointed I was that Californians opposed to Gavin Newsom's Election Rigging Act weren't allowed to have their day in court regarding the questionable procedural maneuvers Democrats utilized to gut voter-approved constitutional protections around redistricting.
Despite what many claim, California's Proposition 50 hasn't been fully ruled on by the courts, either state or federal. State courts rejected petitions for writ and applications for stay completely out-of-hand, and the federal case is still pending. What was denied was an emergency injunction to block the use of the new maps while the federal suit proceeded.
We sued California in November 2025.
— Jesus A. Osete (@JesusOseteDOJ) May 8, 2026
Courts refused to enjoin map for the 2026 cycle.
The suit is still pending, however, and California has moved to dismiss, which we oppose. Callais has only bolstered our case, which is far from over.
Stay tuned. https://t.co/EcPrbducl8
Few realize that there were also state court challenges to Proposition 50 prior to the special election, based upon the Democrats' use of the gut-and-amend process to avoid a different provision of the California constitution requiring a 30-day waiting period, among other issues. For background, the legislation that eventually became Prop 50 was introduced on August 18, 2025, and passed on August 21, 2025.
DIVE DEEPER: CA Republicans File Emergency Motion Before CA Supreme Court to Halt Newsom's Election Rigging Act
California's constitution requires a 30-day waiting period after a bill is introduced before any action can be taken. That amendment to the state constitution was passed by the voters in 1958, and when legislators attempted to decrease that waiting period to 20 days, voters overwhelmingly said no. The only way the waiting period can be waived is by a three-fourths vote of the legislature. Democrats don't have that many votes, so what they've been doing is claiming that a complete gut-and-amend meets the waiting period requirement, even though the only thing that was in print for 30 days was the bill number - and that's exactly what they argued Monday night when Republicans in both the Assembly and Senate objected to taking any action on the bill.
California courts have repeatedly allowed legislators to use the gut-and-amend process, but there's never been a California Supreme Court case declaring it constitutional in all instances. And in this case, at least the Democrats (barely) complied with the 72-hour in print rule required under 2016's Prop 54. However, the fact that this bill amended/revised the California constitution distinguishes it from the overwhelming majority of gut-and-amend bills, which are usually utilized to push budget pork or pet issue legislation.
Republican legislators, led by Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach), filed an emergency motion before the California Supreme Court on the morning of August 19 raising those issues and stating that, bottom line:
"The stark issue for this court to decide in this case is whether this constitutional right is merely the right to publication of a bill number rather than publication of the proposed legislation in that bill."
Plaintiffs asked for a ruling by August 20, since the measures were scheduled to be voted upon by August 21. On August 20, the California Supreme Court issued this denial:
"The petition for writ of mandate and application for stay are denied. Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8."
In other words, they were told it wasn't timely since the bills hadn't passed the legislature. So after the Democrats passed the bills on August 21, Republican legislators again filed a petition for write of mandate and application for stay. Again, the California Supreme Court denied the petition, but without any reason. At all.
"The petition for writ of mandate and application for stay are denied."
It should be noted that Prop 50 didn't simply pause the use of the Citizens Redistricting Commission until 2031; it also paused several redistricting guardrails voters overwhelmingly approved twice. Under Article XXI of the California constitution, the Citizens Redistricting Commission is required to "conduct an open and transparent process enabling full public consideration of and comment on the drawing of district lines" and to "draw district lines according to the redistricting criteria specified in this article," which are (generally, and in order of importance):
- Equal population,
- Compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act,
- Geographic contiguity,
- Respect for cities/counties/neighborhoods and “communities of interest,"
- Geographic compactness.
In addition, Article XXI prohibits political gerrymandering: “Districts shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.” Which is clearly the opposite of what was happening here.
And, the specific intent of the pre-2025 constitutional amendments on redistricting was to remove that map-making power from legislators. Depending on the day and legal or political purpose, though, California Democrats have either denied drawing the maps or taken full credit for drawing them.
There's also the issue of the mid-decade redistricting, which the California Supreme Court had already ruled was prohibited under Article XXI of the California constitution in Legislature v. Deukmejian:
"Under the well-established constitutional principles that we have reviewed, it is clear that because one presumptively valid redistricting plan based on the 1980 census has already been adopted, article XXI prohibits the adoption of a second redistricting plan either by the Legislature or by initiative."
It's unconscionable that California Democrats were able to completely ignore so many constitutional provisions to get this on the ballot, and impermissibly use race and political affiliation to draw these districts, without having to defend it in court.
It's my hope that now, with so much attention on Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, and in a post-Callais world, we'll be able to get some relief from federal courts, because we'll clearly never have relief from any court in California. It would be nice to believe that Californians could live in a world where the law actually means something again.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians like Gavin Newsom.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member