Suit: California’s Race-Based Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
A recent lawsuit challenges California’s new congressional map, alleging it was drawn with illegal racial intent, violating the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Filed by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) on behalf of several residents, the suit claims the map intentionally manipulates district boundaries to maintain a set number of Hispanic majority and black influence districts, thereby constituting race-based gerrymandering. The map, approved by voters through Proposition 50, is said to favor Democrats and counteract Republican gains in Texas.The lawsuit cites admissions from Paul Mitchell, a political data scientist involved in the map’s creation, who acknowledged racial goals in drawing district lines. This is the second legal challenge to the map, with the California GOP and the Department of Justice also contesting it. The issue of race-based redistricting remains under scrutiny, notably in a related Supreme Court case, Louisiana v.callais, which could impact future redistricting legal standards.
California’s new gerrymandered congressional map was drawn “with illegal racial intent and with illegal racial considerations,” a new lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges.
Brought on behalf of several California residents by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), the legal challenge contests the legality of the Golden State’s recently enacted congressional map. Approved by California voters last month via a ballot amendment (Proposition 50), the new map seeks to further gerrymander the state in Democrats’ favor and offset potential gains resulting from Texas Republicans’ redistricting efforts.
As alleged by PILF, the new map “unconstitutionally draws racial districts in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights protected by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution … and Section 2(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” The elections group specifically claimed that the state did so by “intentionally distorting district boundaries along racial lines to preserve a specific number of Hispanic majority districts and two Black influence districts.”
“Plaintiffs are California residents and voters who were injured when Proposition 50 deliberately enacted district boundaries created for racial purposes and with racial tools,” the lawsuit reads. “Plaintiffs will continue to suffer this injury while this electoral map is in place.”
In its suit, PILF cites comments from Paul Mitchell, a political data scientist tapped to draw the new map. According to the legal group, “In an interview, Paul Mitchell admitted to drawing district lines with intentional racial goals.”
“When asked about his decision to place new districts in Los Angeles despite net population loss in the city, Paul Mitchell stated: ‘we’ve actually gained Latino population, so why would you remove districts from a Latino community that has been historic and has a lot of community of interest arguments in that district. Why take that out when you can just leave it there and let all of the districts in LA push out over the county area,’” the lawsuit reads.
PILF’s legal challenge is the second to be filed against California’s new map since its enaction. The other was brought by the California GOP and joined by the Department of Justice.
The use of race in the redistricting process is front and center in a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Known as Louisiana v. Callais, the matter centers around the constitutionality of Louisiana’s creation of a second black-majority district. As The Federalist previously reported, the case — which was heard by the high court in October — could produce major ramifications for the use of race in the redistricting process going forward.
For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
