A federal three-judge panel ruled to deny Texas’s new congressional map, citing issues with racial gerrymandering on Tuesday. This comes after California’s statewide special election on Nov. 4 passed Proposition 50 with an overwhelming majority.
Proposition 50 was a California ballot initiative led by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to Texas’s redistricting efforts.
READ MORE: Early voting shows Proposition 50 leading by 11K votes in San Luis Obispo County
“Donald Trump and [Texas Gov.] Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom posted on X. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”
This ruling will not undo Proposition 50, according to Paul Mitchell, who contributed to drafting the adopted California map.
The “trigger clause” refers to a statement state lawmakers removed from the redistricting legislation or before it went to voters. If included, it would have made Proposition 50’s implementation contingent on Texas passing its redistricting plans. Without the clause, California’s new map will go into effect regardless of Texas’s actions.
Texas faced state-led legal challenges
The League of United Latin American Citizens filed the case against the State of Texas in August after the Trump administration urged Republican lawmakers to redraw districts to create five additional Republican seats.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, who ruled over the trial, said Gov. Greg Abbott directed lawmakers to redistrict based on race. He wrote in his ruling that there was “substantial evidence” that the maps were racially gerrymandered.
“Politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” Brown wrote.
Brown, an appointee of President Donald Trump, referred to a letter from the Trump administration to Gov. Abbott, which Brown claimed Abbot used to justify the redistricting push.
On July 7, Harmeet Dhillon, head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice (DOJ), sent a letter to Gov. Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton writing that four congressional districts in Texas were “unconstitutional” because they were “coalition districts,” which are majority non-white districts in which no single racial group constituted a 50% majority, according to Brown.
The DOJ letter targeted majority non-white districts, Brown wrote.
“Any mention of majority-white Democrat districts, which DOJ presumably would have also targeted if its aims were partisan rather than racial, was conspicuously absent,” he added.
The League of United Latin American Citizens celebrated the federal court decision, writing that the ruling was a “historic moment that protects Latino voters, safeguards fair congressional representation, and prevents partisan manipulation of district lines that could distort legislative power in Washington.”
Gov. Abbott said the conclusions drawn from the case were “absurd and unsupported” in a press release, adding that he would “swiftly appeal to the United States Supreme Court.”
Texas Attorney General will appeal the decision
Paxton will file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting to temporarily pause the ruling that blocked Texas’s new map from implementation.
“The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton wrote in a press release.
He said for years, Democrats have engaged in partisan redistricting, referring to California, Illinois and New York as, “systematically reduc[ing] representation of Republican voters in their congressional delegations.”
“But when Republicans respond in kind, Democrats rely on false accusations of racism to secure a partisan advantage,” he added.
Paxton said he expects the Supreme Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.
California faced federal legal challenges over Proposition 50
This lawsuit follows federal authorities taking legal action against California after the statewide special election. A group of California voters, led by California Assemblymember David Tangipa filed a lawsuit on Nov. 5 against the congressional map adopted by the California legislature that plaintiffs allege is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, according to court documents.
On Nov. 13, the Department of Justice intervened in the case, after United States Attorney General Pam Bondi certified the case was one of general public importance, according to court documents.
The Department wrote, “Substantial evidence, including that in the legislative record and public statements, indicate that the legislature created a new map in which Latino demographics and racial considerations predominated, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
As of Nov. 19, the DOJ’s motion to intervene in Tangipa et al v. Newsom is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Update Nov. 20, 2:03 p.m.: This headline was edited to prioritize Proposition 50 as a factor in the story.