By Matthew Vadum | The Epoch Times
SACRAMENTO, Calif.— The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 4 allowed California to use its newly redrawn congressional map that aims to give Democrats five extra seats in the upcoming midterm elections, rejecting a Republican challenge that argued the changes constituted unlawful racial gerrymandering.
The decision in Tangipa v. Newsom came in an unsigned order with no dissents. The court did not explain its ruling, but the action leaves in place a map authorized by voters in November 2025 through Proposition 50.
Background on the Challenge
California Republicans had filed an emergency application with the court on Jan. 20, asking the justices to block the map that gives Democrats an electoral advantage. The legal challenge argued that the redrawn districts violate the federal Voting Rights Act through unlawful racial gerrymandering—a practice the Supreme Court has previously ruled unconstitutional when race is the predominant factor in drawing boundaries.
However, in a 2–1 ruling delivered on Jan. 14, a three-judge federal panel in California rejected those arguments.
“We find that Challengers have failed to show that racial gerrymandering occurred, and we conclude that there is no basis for issuing a preliminary injunction,” the court wrote in its opinion.
The judges noted that California’s move came as a direct reaction to similar redistricting efforts undertaken in Texas that President Donald Trump encouraged—a tactic the panel described as a “proportional and legal reaction.”
“The stated goal of [the legislation authorizing the referendum] was to counter the actions of Texas and pick up an additional five Democratic seats,” the court wrote. “The new map drawn by a private consultant, paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and incorporated into Proposition 50, met that goal exactly.”
National Context
The Feb. 4 ruling comes after the court on Dec. 4, 2025, upheld a redrawn election map in Texas that aimed to increase Republican representation in that state’s U.S. House delegation by five seats.
When the Texas application came before the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens that appeared to foreshadow the California decision.
“It is indisputable … that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Alito wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito’s opinion at the time.
The Supreme Court’s emergency rulings in both the California and Texas cases did not formally uphold the congressional maps, but allowed the maps to remain in place for the time being while litigation continues. Both cases could return to the nation’s highest court in the future.
Political Reactions
California Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated the ruling in a post on X.
“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” Newsom wrote. “He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”
The Epoch Times reached out for comment to attorneys for lead applicant David Tangipa, a Republican member of the California State Assembly, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which supported the challenge to the California map. No replies were received by publication time.
Impact on Siskiyou County
The new congressional map affects district boundaries statewide, including representation for Siskiyou County voters. While the county remains within a predominantly rural Northern California district, redistricting shifts could influence congressional representation for the region in the 2026 midterm elections.
Republicans currently hold a 218–214 majority over Democrats in the U.S. House, with three seats vacant. The five-seat swing potential in California’s new map could prove decisive in determining control of Congress following the November elections.
Joseph Lord contributed to this report.
Article ID: 35006
