The political landscape in California is once again roiling as Democrats and Republicans clash over a controversial push to redraw the state’s congressional districts—a move that could dramatically reshape the state’s representation in Washington. On August 18, 2025, California Democrats used a legislative maneuver known as “gut and amend” to rush through bills enabling a special election on new congressional maps, a process that has drawn fierce criticism and a lawsuit from state Republicans.
At the heart of the conflict is Governor Gavin Newsom’s effort to fast-track the approval of new election maps before the November 4, 2025 special election. According to CalMatters, the governor’s urgency stems from recent Republican-led gerrymandering in Texas, where the GOP moved to redraw districts to increase their congressional seats by five after the 2026 midterm elections—a strategy Democrats fear could tip the balance of power in Congress. Newsom’s team hopes that by responding swiftly, they can counteract Texas’s maneuvers and protect Democratic interests at the national level.
But the process has been anything but smooth. Republicans argue that the Democrats’ use of the “gut and amend” tactic—which involves stripping the language from existing bills and replacing it with entirely new proposals—violates the state constitution. The constitution requires that non-budget bills be publicly available for 30 days before a legislative vote, unless a three-fourths majority waives the rule. Instead, Democrats repurposed Assembly Bill 604 and Senate Bill 280, both originally introduced in early February 2025, with new redistricting language posted only on August 18. This maneuver has left the opposition fuming over what they see as a lack of transparency and public input.
“If they did it right, they would have public hearings, public notice, they would get the authority from the people of California, and then they would draw the maps,” Republican Senator Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach, the lead lawmaker on the lawsuit, told CalMatters. He accused Newsom and the Democrats of orchestrating a “backroom deal” with “no public input, no transparency, no light of day.”
The lawsuit, filed by Strickland and co-signed by several other Republican lawmakers, seeks to block the Democratic-controlled Legislature from considering the bills that would enable the special election. The legal action could slow down the process by which election officials—already pressed for time—get the new maps onto Californians’ ballots. But much depends on how quickly the California Supreme Court acts, and whether it chooses to suspend the legislative process while reviewing the lawsuit.
The legal challenge is not without precedent, but it is rare for such disputes over legislative procedure to reach the state’s highest court. Chris Micheli, a veteran lobbyist, explained to CalMatters that for decades, lawmakers have considered a bill’s initial introduction date as the start of the 30-day clock. However, for “gut and amend” cases, the Legislature typically follows a separate rule, added to the constitution by voters in 2016, requiring only a 72-hour public notice before a vote. “To be fair, it is untested and there’s no court decision on this,” Micheli noted, adding, “I don’t think it will succeed.”
Legislative hearings on August 19, 2025, previewed the intense obstacles ahead for Newsom and his allies. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, Republicans in Sacramento lambasted Democrats for trying to dismantle the independent redistricting process established by voters in 2010—a reform intended to remove partisan influence from redistricting. They questioned not only the speed of the process and the cost of holding a special election, but also who actually drew the proposed new districts and who was funding the effort.
“The public cannot have a voice if they do not know what’s going on,” said Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego, echoing concerns that the process was being rushed without sufficient opportunity for public review or comment. Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Clovis) was even more blunt during a heated, five-hour committee hearing: “That’s insanity, and that’s heartbreaking to the rest of Californians. How can you say you actually care about the people of California?”
Democrats, for their part, bristled at the criticism. Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) tried to rein in the escalating tensions, telling her colleagues, “I would like you both to give me a little time and respect.” When pressed about who had drawn the new districts, Tom Willis, Newsom’s campaign counsel, maintained that the map was “publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.” But when Republican State Senator Steve Choi (R-Irvine) asked who was responsible for drawing the maps in the first place, Willis admitted he couldn’t answer, saying he “wasn’t a part of that process.”
Some Democrats have been unusually candid about the partisan nature of the redistricting effort. State Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) told the Los Angeles Times, “This is a partisan gerrymander,” arguing that the move was necessary to counteract Trump administration policies that have disproportionately impacted Californians. Her remarks prompted a GOP operative aiding the opposition campaign to quip, “It made me salivate.”
The stakes are high: the proposed map could cost as many as five California Republicans their congressional seats in the 2026 midterm elections, according to the Los Angeles Times. If the measure passes both legislative chambers with a two-thirds majority and is signed by Newsom this week, it will appear on the November 4, 2025 ballot.
Outside the legislature, advocacy groups have weighed in as well. California Common Cause, a staunch supporter of independent redistricting, initially appeared open to revisiting the state’s rules, arguing that unilateral political disarmament was unwise in the face of what they described as “authoritarianism.” But on August 19, the group announced its opposition to the Senate bill, stating, “It would create significant rollbacks in voter protections.” The organization warned that the proposed legislation could reduce in-person voting, limit opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots, and dampen avenues for public input. “These changes to the Elections Code ... would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians,” the group said in a statement.
As the legal and political battle continues, all eyes are on the California Supreme Court and the state legislature, where the outcome could set a precedent for how redistricting fights unfold in an era of intense partisan competition. The fate of California’s congressional districts—and perhaps the balance of power in Congress itself—hangs in the balance.
