Republicans and Democrats square in Centract in a battle of high clothes over the proposal of California 50, which harmonizes the federal districts, finally they were able to help determine the US house in the midterms of 2026.
Most of California’s politicians and Sacrameo Insolwars – Members of the GoP in the Assembly in Democratic RedipristTing Expert Paul Mitchell – have been called to testify in the Los Angeles Federal Courtroom in the next few days.
The GOP wants a three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s state map, saying it is illegal and unfairly favors Latino voters.
A majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 On November 4 after the Gov Democrats agreed that the new map will weaken the voting power of the Republicans in California, but they argued that it could be a temporary measure to try to restore the national political balance.
GOP lawmakers cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it divides swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the US Supreme Court he decided Those partisan grymandering complaints have no recourse in federal court.
But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. See argue California legislators drew new race-based congressional maps, in violation of the equal protection laws of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibit states from having the right to vote or color.
The hearing comes just weeks after the US Supreme Court allowed its new unification map to be upheld — a move Newlom’s office said hurt Republicans trying to block the California map.
“By allowing Texas to use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like those of Texas,” Brandon Richards, a spokesman for New York News, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and end of this Republican effort to silence California voters.”
In Texas, GOP leaders are raising new district lines for the District after President Truas publicly pressured them to give Republicans five seats in five schools. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial bias would have made the Texas map illegal. But a few days later the Supreme Court – allowed The request of Texas ‘To make us end that decision, to sign they consider the case of Texas, and this one in California, as part of a renewed political battle.
“The impetus for the adoption of the map of Texas (similar to the map later adopted in California),” JISHEMU USAMUEL AA Alito Jr. he got into an argument“It was a nice and simple benefit.”
The fact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Talito’s Califormi Case has changed when California is mentioned is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasse, a law professor and director of democracy at UCLA.
“It’s hard to prove racial intelligence in a map — that’s partially represented by race or other traditional regional values,” Haven said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, it has a high weight now, because it can change things near the election, with the Supreme Court signed where Texas ruled that the courts should be careful to make changes.”
Many legal experts say the Supreme Court’s decision in the Texas case means California will keep its new map.
“It was very difficult before the Texas case to make a racial claim of GryryMarnerpering as the plaintiffs said, and it is very difficult two weeks ago,” said Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Marymount Unigentrun.
Hours after California stars voted in favor of Prop.
The Department of Justice also included a appeal In the context, opposition to the new assembly map that uses race as a political proxy and District lines “in the name of strengthening the voting power of Hispanic noses because of their race.”
Mitchell, a regeneration specialist who creates maps, may be a key factor in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys have speculated that Mitchell will testify and how he should respond to his emails with lawmakers. Mitchell’s lawyers say they have a legal right.
GOP attorneys took issue with Mitchell’s public comments that “one thing” he started thinking about Latino Angeles “and” his team and “his” team that “that” that
Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.
“What [Mitchell] I said, actually, ‘I was paying attention to the race,'” Levitt said. But there is nothing under existing law that is wrong with that. The problem comes when you focus too much on the pursuit of the pursuit to the exclusion of all the other pursuits of renewal. “
Some legal experts say that what matters is not the intent of California’s sailors or boats, but the California voters who passed the proposal. 50.
“Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or the legislative leaders were like, they were just making a voter proposal,” said Haven, who filed an amicus brief in support of the State. “So it’s the intent of the voters that really matters. And if you look at what was presented to the voters on the ballot, there was nothing about race there.”
