California Republicans take redistricting fight to the state Supreme Court
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Republicans filed an emergency petition to block redistricting bills they claim violate California’s Constitution.
- Democrats used a ‘gut and amend’ tactic to fast-track new voting maps for a fall vote.
- The California Supreme Court will decide if normal legislative procedures were bypassed.
California Republicans have spent days making a political argument for why voters should reject a Democratic effort to gerrymander the state’s Congressional districts.
Now, they added a legal one.
Republican legislators filed an emergency petition with the California Supreme Court, arguing Democrats are blatantly violating the state Constitution by rushing bills through the Legislature that would create new voting districts.
“We are tired of the political powerful and elite taking the power away from the people,” state Sen. Suzette Valladares, R-Acton, one of the lawmakers making the request, said during a news conference Tuesday morning at the California Republican Party headquarters in downtown Sacramento. It occurred shortly before members of the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee met to discuss one of the bills during an informational hearing. “That is what we are seeing right now. And my colleagues and I — we are going to be on the right side of history.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators are pushing for the changes in response to the Texas Legislature planning to reconfigure that state’s maps to send more Republican representatives to Congress after the 2026 midterm election, at the urging of President Donald Trump. California’s effort would circumvent a voter-approved process of having an independent redistricting commission determine the maps.
The California Constitution says legislators must wait 30 days to act on a bill that isn’t budget related unless three-fourths of the Legislature votes to waive that requirement. On Monday, Democratic lawmakers swapped out the text of three old bills and put in new language — a tactic known as a “gut and amend.”
The practice is commonly used in the Capitol, particularly to push through measures outside of legislative deadlines. In this case, lawmakers are trying to approve the bills this week to meet the Secretary of State’s Aug. 22 deadline to set up a special election in November so Californians can vote on the newly-drawn maps.
“If the Legislature has been flagrantly violating this provision of the Constitution in the past, so what?” said Michael Columbo, one of the attorneys who filed the petition on behalf of the legislators. “It should stop and the California Supreme Court’s the only institution that can do it.”
Columbo is an attorney for the Dhillon Law Group, the firm founded by Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer and conservative activist who is now the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. She is not listed on the firm’s website and a representative did not immediately respond to a question about what, if any role, she has with the firm.
Dhillon has weighed into the redistricting fight, saying in a July letter to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that the federal government would consider legal action against the state if it did not change four districts due to concerns about racial gerrymandering.
The emergency filing asks the Supreme Court to order that the Legislature can’t vote on two of the recently-modified bills until September 18. One contains the legal description of the new districts and the other calls for the special election.
Republicans at the news conference blasted Newsom.
“He’s destroying Democracy in California, if he’s successful,” state Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach. “We won’t have any competitive seats throughout the state of California. And the voters will have no voice. That’s not good for Democrats, independents or Republicans.”
The Governor’s Office brushed off the legal effort.
“Republicans are filing a deeply unserious (and truly laughable) lawsuit to stop Americans from voting? We’re neither surprised, nor worried,” said Brandon Richards, a Governor’s Office spokesperson.
So did other Democratic leaders.
“These folks are total hypocrites, and should focus their efforts on stopping Trump and Texas, who are the real culprits here,” state Senate President pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Santa Rosa, said in a statement.
“Republicans filed this lawsuit to stop Californians from voting — that’s anti-American and anti-democratic,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister.
California’s Constitution also says the Legislature may not pass a bill unless it has been in print, and posted on the Internet, for at least 72 hours. Democrats argue that they are following the Constitution with the current bills because they are meeting that 72-hour rule.
Columbo called that a “silly” argument and contended that the rule does not undercut the 30-day requirement.
“The idea to interpret the word ‘bill’ only to mean the number of a bill, and not its content, is completely at odds with the entire purpose of that provision,” he said.
Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.
This story was originally published August 19, 2025 at 2:13 PM.
