“The state Legislature has weaponized this entire process and lied to California voters,” argued Assemblyman David Tangipa.
Proposition 50 was, any way one slices it, a highly controversial move. Its proponents acknowledged that it deliberately circumvents the nonpartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission—which California voters approved via 2008’s Proposition 11—but argued it was a necessary evil to counter Texas Republicans’ efforts to redraw their lines. Opponents argued it was a candidly partisan rush-job with no benefit to constituents other than tilting the Golden State’s congressional makeup in favor of Democrats. But that alone is not enough to see them overturned.
However, Democrats may be guilty of racial discrimination, having given preferential treatment to some ethnic groups over others. That’s the argument being leveraged by Assemblyman David Tangipa. And if this is true, Prop 50 may be shot down by a federal court ruling.
Asm. Tangipa is the lead plaintiff, along with 18 others, in Tangipa v. Newsom, a federal lawsuit that argues the voters’ newly approved maps illegally used race as a predominant criterion and therefore violate the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The suit alleges that the maps were drawn to favor Latinos over other racial groups, consolidating political power for Hispanics while blatantly disregarding and in some cases separating other communities to achieve more favorable maps.
“These maps are completely diminishing the voices of some groups to benefit others,” Tangipa said. “The state Legislature has weaponized this entire process and lied to California voters.”
His case asks a three-judge panel in Los Angeles for a preliminary injunction to stop the maps from being used in the 2026 elections and to restore the prior maps until the dispute is resolved.
The legal bar Tangipa must cross is steep. Federal courts recognize that race can be considered in redistricting to remedy past discrimination or to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, race cannot be the predominant factor unless the state can show a compelling justification and use narrowly tailored means. Clearly, Tangipa knows this.
“It is legal to race-based redistrict under the Voter Rights Act. Section 2 protects it. But it also gives you guidelines,” Tangipa told CalMatters after testifying in court on Monday. “In Sacramento, they did not follow those guidelines.”
The defense will almost assuredly use voters’ approval of Prop 50 as justification to counter judicial intervention. Courts are typically hesitant to overturn the results of a popular vote unless plaintiffs can show clear constitutional error.
But Tangipa has already seen some promising early victories. The U.S. Department of Justice joined in the case, issued its own brief echoing Tangipa’s concerns and stating the maps raise serious constitutional questions. This could transmogrify into a large-scale, precedent-setting SCOTUS case—a landmark decision on the question of how federal civil-rights law will be applied to partisan mid-decade redistricting tactics.
That may or may not work in Tangipa’s favor. Recently, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld the newly-drawn congressional districts in Texas even though it was “indisputable that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map was partisan advantage pure and simple,” in the words of Justice Samuel Alito.
That seemingly creates some room for California Dems to argue that their maps were drawn for purely partisan reasons, not to grant outsize influence to any one racial group. The idiom “six of one, half a dozen of the other” comes to mind. That is of course the primary point of contention to be deliberated and considered.
Tangipa and company cite a series of potentially-damning comments from Paul Mitchell, a consultant hired by Democrats to draw the new maps, attesting “the number one thing” he started thinking about was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles.”
Closing arguments ended Wednesday. Mitchell refused to testify at the hearing and invoked legislative privilege “dozens of times” prior to the hearing.
For Tangipa, the goal is not a partisan victory for Republicans but to preserve the independence of nonpartisan mapmaking and to prevent nakedly political power plays made by either side of the aisle. To that point, he had this to say: “I am not for the gerrymandering,” Tangipa said. “When it comes to the President of the United States, it’s not up to me to police the President, it’s up to me to do my job as a Californian and as an elected official to make California better.”
“Good luck, losers,” said Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Governor Newsom, mockingly.
