As the political battleground intensifies ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, California Governor Gavin Newsom is preparing to challenge Texas Republicans' controversial redistricting plans by proposing a new congressional map for California. This move comes in direct response to Texas GOP lawmakers unveiling a plan that aims to redraw district lines, potentially securing five additional seats for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.
On July 31, 2025, during a press conference in Sacramento, Newsom announced his intention to hold a special statewide election in November, likely on November 4, to allow Californians to vote on new congressional maps. Unlike Texas, where Republican legislators plan to redraw districts ahead of schedule, California’s redistricting authority traditionally lies with an independent bipartisan commission established by voters in 2010. However, Newsom intends to temporarily bypass this commission to present a new map favoring Democrats, citing the urgency of responding to what he calls an unfair power grab.
"I don't think it gets much bigger, and we're going to respond in a transparent way and an honest way, but it's in response," Newsom said. "But I'm not going to sit back any longer in a position, in a fetal position, in a position of weakness, when in fact California can demonstrably advance strength." He emphasized that the process would be transparent, with voters able to review the proposed maps before casting their ballots. "This is not going to be done in a back room. This is not going to be done by members of some private group or body," Newsom added.
Texas Republicans, led by Governor Greg Abbott, have called a special legislative session in 2026 to redraw congressional districts four years ahead of the usual schedule, aiming to bolster their slim House majority, currently standing at 220-212 with three seats vacant. The Texas proposal has drawn sharp criticism for its apparent intent to marginalize Democratic voters, particularly Latino and Black communities. Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), accused Republicans of designing district lines to dilute the electoral power of these groups. She pointed to the proposed districts around San Antonio and Houston, where majority Latino and Black populations could see their influence significantly reduced.
Specifically, Jenkins highlighted a plan to merge Democratic Representative Al Green's District 9, which has the largest Black voter bloc, with the currently vacant but majority-Democratic District 18. This merger would "essentially cut in half the number of districts where black voters have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice," she said. John Bisognano, president of the NDRC, described the Texas redistricting effort as a "very simple power grab," underscoring the group's focus on combating this move but clarifying that they would not pursue unilateral redrawing of districts in other states.
California’s congressional delegation currently includes 52 members, with only nine Republicans, despite nearly 40% of the state's voters supporting GOP House candidates. Critics have long argued that California's districts are drawn aggressively in favor of Democrats, leading to a partisan imbalance. Philip Hensley-Robin, Executive Director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, commented on the situation, saying, "What we're seeing in Texas and California is partisan extremism... Democrats in Texas deserve fair representation. The same is true for Republicans in California, and that's because every voter in every state deserves fair districts and fair representation." He and other Common Cause leaders expressed concern that the redistricting scramble benefits political interests at the expense of public trust in the political system.
Newsom’s plan to redraw California's districts is unprecedented in recent history, as the state's independent redistricting commission was created to remove partisan politics from the process. The governor insists his approach does not intend to eliminate the commission but to provide a pathway for new maps in response to the aggressive tactics emerging from Texas. "This won’t just happen in Texas. I imagine he’s making similar calls all across the country," Newsom said, referring to former President Donald Trump’s alleged role in encouraging such maneuvers nationwide. "It’s a big deal. I don't think it gets much bitter."
However, the broader legal and political context complicates these developments. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause effectively immunized partisan gerrymandering from federal court scrutiny. In a 5-4 decision largely split along party lines, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." This ruling overturned decades of judicial efforts to curb partisan redistricting, opening the door for states like Texas to pursue aggressive map redrawing without fear of federal intervention.
Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting in the case, warned that such gerrymanders "deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights" and "debased and dishonored our democracy." She cited examples from North Carolina and Maryland, where district lines were drawn to entrench partisan advantages despite the popular vote not reflecting such disparities. Legal scholars like Rick Hasen, a UCLA election law professor, have criticized the ruling as "ridiculous," noting that courts regularly assess motives in other contexts, such as employment discrimination, and suggesting the court majority was unwilling, not unable, to judge partisan intent.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, commented that the ruling "very much reduces judicial authority over a true threat to democracy." Meanwhile, UC Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber observed that the court's reluctance to intervene in partisan redistricting is unique compared to other politically charged decisions like Citizens United (2010) and Shelby County (2013), where the court did engage deeply with political issues.
The history of gerrymandering dates back centuries to Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who in 1812 approved district lines shaped like a salamander to benefit his party. The Supreme Court’s 1964 declaration of the "one person, one vote" principle mandated that districts must have roughly equal populations, but the political manipulation of district boundaries has persisted, evolving with demographic and political shifts.
In California, the prospect of a special election to approve new congressional maps poses significant challenges. The independent redistricting commission was established by voters to remove politics from the process, and asking Californians to approve a partisan gerrymander could be politically fraught. The last special election in California, held in 2021, cost the state $200 million, underscoring the financial stakes involved. The outcome of such a vote remains uncertain, especially given the state’s history of favoring nonpartisan redistricting.
As California prepares to potentially redraw its congressional districts, the political stakes could not be higher. With Texas seeking to expand Republican representation and California aiming to counterbalance that effort, the battle over redistricting highlights deep divisions in American democracy. The Supreme Court’s hands-off approach has left these conflicts to be resolved largely by political maneuvering and voter approval, raising questions about fairness, representation, and the future of electoral integrity.
Governor Newsom’s call to arms reflects a growing recognition that the rules of the political game are changing—and that states are willing to fight fire with fire. Whether California’s voters will back this strategy remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the fight over congressional maps is shaping up to be one of the defining political battles of the coming years.
