California's Proposition 50 Sparks Legal Battle as Democrats Eye 2026 House Majority

---

Unprecedented Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle Intensifies

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): California voters approved Proposition 50 on November 4, 2025, temporarily replacing independent redistricting with a Democratic-drawn congressional map designed to gain five House seats. The measure now faces federal lawsuits from the California Republican Party and the U.S. Department of Justice alleging unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Meanwhile, a federal court blocked Texas Republicans' parallel redistricting effort, though the Supreme Court temporarily reinstated it pending appeal. These dueling redistricting battles, occurring amid historic political volatility, could determine which party controls the House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections—when the president's party typically loses seats and Republicans currently hold only a razor-thin 219-214 majority.

In an extraordinary political maneuver that has triggered a nationwide redistricting arms race, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50 earlier this month, authorizing the state to use a legislature-drawn congressional map designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections. The measure passed with approximately 64 percent support, temporarily suspending the authority of California's bipartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission.[1]

The proposition emerged as a direct response to President Donald Trump's summer directive to Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional maps. Trump's strategy aimed to secure five additional Republican seats in the narrowly divided House of Representatives, where the GOP currently holds a precarious 219-214 majority (with two vacant seats).[2]

"California's redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process," Attorney General Pam Bondi declared in announcing the Justice Department's intervention in the case on November 13, 2025. "Governor Newsom's attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand."[3]

Governor Gavin Newsom's office responded sharply to the federal lawsuit, with spokesperson Brandon Richards stating: "These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court."[4]

The Origins of California's Redistricting Gambit

The genesis of Proposition 50 traces to June 2025, when Republican lawmakers in Texas first proposed gerrymandering their state's congressional district lines. In July, Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to discuss redistricting, prompting Texas House Democrats to flee the state in an unsuccessful attempt to break quorum.[5]

Governor Newsom initially offered President Trump an olive branch. On August 11, 2025, he sent a letter to the president stating that California would pause any mid-decade redistricting effort if other states called off their efforts. "If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California," Newsom wrote. "But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same."[6]

When Texas proceeded with its redistricting plan, Newsom moved forward with his own. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee formally submitted the new California map, drawn by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, to the state legislature.[7]

An initial version of California's plan included "trigger language" that would have implemented the new maps only if Texas or another state enacted similar measures. However, the final ballot measure approved by voters contained no such provision, meaning California's redistricting will proceed regardless of what happens in Texas.[8]

The new map redraws several congressional districts to incorporate larger shares of urban and suburban Democratic voters, increasing Democratic registration advantages in competitive districts and converting several Republican-leaning seats into Democratic-leaning ones. Political analysts estimate the changes could shift approximately five seats from Republican to Democratic control.[9]

Legal Challenges Mount Against California's New Maps

The day after Proposition 50 passed, the California Republican Party, represented by prominent conservative attorney Harmeet Dhillon, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint argues that the redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment by engaging in racial gerrymandering that favors Latino voters.[10]

Eighteen individuals joined the California Republican Party as plaintiffs, including Assemblymember David Tangipa, Walnut city councilmember Eric Ching, former San Benito County supervisor Peter Hernandez, and McFarland mayor Saul Ayon. At a press conference announcing the lawsuit, Tangipa, a Polynesian elected official, called California's diversity "beautiful" and argued that Proposition 50 will diminish "the voices of other groups."[11]

"I'm appalled by what has happened," Tangipa said. "This whole process was a sham."[12]

The lawsuit specifically targets 16 congressional districts that California legislators have explicitly characterized as "Voting Rights Act districts" designed to "empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice." The complaint cites Supreme Court precedent established in Cooper v. Harris and Miller v. Johnson, which requires states to demonstrate that they relied on strong evidence that race-conscious districting was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.[13]

Attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the California GOP, pointed to statements made by map drawer Paul Mitchell and Democratic legislative leaders acknowledging that the new maps would increase the power of Latino voters. "When states racially gerrymander their voting districts, the Supreme Court has permitted a limited exception to the Constitution," Columbo explained. "That exception requires, among other things, that the favored voters are a minority whose preferred candidates cannot get elected because of the votes of another majority race."[14]

The Republican plaintiffs reference the 1986 Supreme Court case Thornburg v. Gingles, which established a three-pronged test requiring proof of voter dilution of minority groups when redistricting. The GOP argues that California failed to meet these requirements before redrawing its districts.[15]

Republicans had previously attempted to block Proposition 50 in state courts. On August 20, 2025, the California Supreme Court rejected a motion by four Republican state legislators—Senators Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares, and Assembly members Tri Ta and Kate Sanchez—seeking to block the vote in the legislature on grounds that state law required a 30-day waiting period. The same four legislators filed a second emergency lawsuit after the bill became law, which the California Supreme Court also rejected.[16]

Justice Department Intervenes with Race-Based Gerrymandering Claims

The legal landscape shifted dramatically on November 13, 2025, when the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was joining the California Republican Party's lawsuit as a plaintiff. The DOJ's intervention elevated the case from a state political dispute to a federal constitutional matter with potential nationwide implications.

"The race-based gerrymandered maps passed by the California legislature are unlawful and unconstitutional," said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California in announcing the intervention.[17]

Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, elaborated on the Justice Department's position: "Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50. Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond."[18]

The Justice Department's motion to intervene in Tangipa, et al. v. Newsom, et al. remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Legal observers note that the DOJ's involvement significantly strengthens the plaintiffs' case and increases the likelihood that the dispute will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.[19]

Texas Redistricting Blocked, Then Temporarily Restored

While California's redistricting battle intensified, parallel events unfolded in Texas with dramatic reversals. On November 18, 2025, a three-judge federal panel in El Paso issued a 160-page ruling blocking Texas from using its newly drawn congressional map for the 2026 elections, concluding that "substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map."[20]

The opinion, written by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown—a Trump appointee—was particularly damaging because it systematically dismantled the legal justification Texas offered for its mid-decade redistricting. Brown acknowledged that "politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics."[21]

Central to the court's reasoning was a July 7, 2025, letter from the Justice Department under Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to Texas officials, which urged the state to redraw districts because existing "coalition districts" (districts with non-white majorities where no single racial group predominates) allegedly violated the Constitution. Governor Abbott cited this letter when calling for redistricting, which the court determined meant "the Governor explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race."[22]

Judge Brown described the DOJ letter as "challenging to unpack" because it contained "so many factual, legal, and typographical errors." The judge further noted that "even attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General—who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration—describe the DOJ Letter as 'legally() unsound,' 'baseless,' 'erroneous,' 'ham-fisted,' and 'a mess.'"[23]

The panel ordered Texas to use the congressional map it drew in 2021, based on the 2020 census, rather than the newly gerrymandered version. Of Texas's 38 House seats, Republicans currently hold 25 under the 2021 map; the 2025 map was designed to increase that number to 30.[24]

U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee, joined Brown in the majority opinion. Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Reagan appointee to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, filed a scathing dissent, calling the majority opinion "the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed."[25]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately announced his intention to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people," Paxton declared. "The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas."[26]

On November 21, 2025—just three days after the lower court ruling—Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito granted Texas's emergency request and issued an administrative stay temporarily restoring the 2025 congressional map while the high court considers the state's appeal. Alito ordered the plaintiffs to file their response by November 24, 2025.[27]

The Justice Department under the Trump administration is now in the awkward position of arguing that Texas's race-conscious redistricting was justified (to dismantle coalition districts) while simultaneously arguing that California's race-conscious redistricting violates the Constitution.

Historical Context: Unprecedented Mid-Decade Redistricting

The current redistricting battle represents a dramatic departure from normal American political practice. Traditionally, states redraw congressional district lines only once per decade, following the constitutionally mandated census. This decennial process allows for adjustments based on population shifts while providing stability and predictability in the electoral system.

California created its Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2008 through Proposition 11, removing state legislative redistricting from the legislature's control. In 2010, voters approved Proposition 20, expanding the commission's authority to include congressional districts. The commission's stated purpose was to "take politics out of the process" and create fairer districts.[28]

From 2010 to 2025, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission conducted congressional redistricting twice—in 2011 and 2021. As of 2025, Democrats held 43 of California's 52 congressional seats, while Republicans held nine.[29]

The decision to bypass this independent commission marks a significant reversal of California's commitment to nonpartisan redistricting. Proposition 50's passage required a constitutional amendment—approved by voters—because the original redistricting reforms were themselves constitutional amendments.

The Nationwide Redistricting Arms Race

Trump's call for mid-decade redistricting has triggered responses far beyond Texas and California. Several states have either adopted new district lines or initiated processes to do so:

Republican-Led Efforts:

• Missouri and North Carolina: Both states passed new maps that political analysts say could help the GOP win one seat in each state.[30]
• Ohio: Drew a map giving Republicans a slight advantage in several seats.[31]
• Indiana: Initially planned redistricting, but Republican Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray announced the GOP-controlled upper chamber lacked votes to proceed at a special December session.[32]

Democratic-Led Efforts:

• Virginia: Democrats initiated a process that could yield two additional seats for their party.[33]
• New York: Democrats began pursuing new congressional maps to counterbalance Republican gains.[34]

Court-Ordered Changes:

• Utah: District Court Judge Dianna Gibson threw out the state's redrawn map in favor of one created by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, creating a congressional district favorable to Democrats. Republicans had hoped their new map would yield one additional seat.[35]

Political analyst Chris Micheli noted the critical distinction between the Texas and California cases: "They actually have increased or enhanced minority base districts, particularly for Latino voters," referring to California's maps, contrasting them with Texas's approach of dismantling such districts.[36]

Political Stakes: Control of Congress Hangs in Balance

The redistricting battles carry enormous implications for control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. Republicans currently hold only a 219-214 majority, meaning Democrats need to gain just five seats to win control of the chamber.[37]

Historical patterns strongly favor Democrats capturing the House in 2026. In 20 of the past 22 midterm elections stretching back to 1938, the president's party has lost seats in the House of Representatives. The two exceptions—2002 and 2022—occurred under unusual circumstances (the September 11 attacks and backlash to the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, respectively).[38]

William Galston of the Brookings Institution analyzed the 2026 landscape and concluded: "If the election were held tomorrow, our swing/seat-change chart predicts a Republican loss of about 12 seats, while our analysis of recent patterns—showing House seats have been distributed in proportion to the national House vote—predicts a Democratic total of 226, a gain of 11 seats."[39]

Current polling suggests Democrats hold an advantage heading into the midterms. As of late November 2025, Real Clear Politics shows Democrats with approximately a two-percentage-point advantage (45.2 percent versus 43.2 percent) in its 2026 Generic Congressional Vote average. Significantly, only eight of the polls included in the average show Republicans ahead, compared to 64 for Democrats.[40]

YouGov polling from November 2025 shows 46 percent of registered voters would vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, compared to 39 percent who would vote for the Republican candidate—the largest Democratic advantage since YouGov began asking the question in February.[41]

Beyond generic ballot numbers, structural factors favor Democrats. The Cook Political Report's first rankings for the 2026 midterms listed 10 Democrat-held seats and eight Republican-controlled seats as toss-ups. The report noted that of the 37 seats won by less than five points in 2024, Democrats hold 22 and Republicans hold 15.[42]

"Another Knife Fight for the Majority" is how the Cook Report described the House showdown ahead, with publisher Amy Walter noting that a "Small playing field + volatile political climate = epic battle for House control."[43]

Republican Challenges: Unity and Margins

Republicans face significant structural challenges in defending their majority beyond the historical midterm headwinds. The party's razor-thin majority has already produced governance difficulties.

On January 3, 2025, Speaker Mike Johnson won the speakership with exactly 218 votes—the bare minimum needed—after the House held the vote open for about two hours while Johnson negotiated with holdouts who eventually switched their votes. Johnson became the first speaker candidate in 112 years to win without a single vote beyond the bare minimum needed for a majority.[44]

The narrow majority has hampered legislative productivity. In 2023, House Republicans passed almost no legislation. During 2024, the caucus repeatedly had to cancel announced votes because they could not garner majority agreement on rules for debate or on the bills themselves. Despite Johnson's promise to delay any recess until all 12 annual appropriations bills had passed, several remained unpassed as of December 2024.[45]

The caucus's planned "first two weeks" agenda stalled, with Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) able to bring up only about half of the 11 bills he promised would be "ready-to-go" in that timeframe.[46]

Several Republican members are leaving the House to join the Trump administration, further narrowing the working majority. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida resigned in November 2024. Rep. Mike Waltz of Florida and Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York are expected to depart to take positions in Trump's administration, though special elections will eventually replace them.[47]

Democratic Strategy: Offense and Investigation

Democratic leaders have made clear their intentions should they capture the House in 2026. Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal and other prominent Democrats formed a task force in June 2024 to counter Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's comprehensive policy blueprint for a second Trump administration.[48]

"The stakes just couldn't be higher," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) told the Associated Press in announcing the Stop Project 2025 Task Force. "If we're trying to react to it and understand it in real time, it's too late. We need to see it coming well in advance and prepare ourselves accordingly."[49]

In a February 2025 opinion piece for MSNBC, Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) outlined the Democratic strategy: "Democrats in Congress will demand accountability. We will use our bully pulpit to force these issues into the public consciousness, reminding the American people of the harm these actions will do to their communities, their families and their pocketbooks. We will pressure the Republican majorities in both chambers to muster what little courage they have left to stand up to this would-be dictator in the White House. And we must not be afraid to use every tool at our disposal to delay and obstruct the passage and implementation of any legislation that circumvents our laws, harms our constituents and drags us further down the path toward authoritarianism."[50]

If Democrats gain control of the House while Republicans retain the Senate—the most commonly predicted scenario among political analysts—the result would be divided government for the final two years of Trump's presidency. This would enable House Democrats to launch investigations into the Trump administration while preventing most of the president's legislative agenda from advancing.

However, the Senate filibuster would protect much Trump-era legislation passed through reconciliation or with 60-vote majorities, creating an interesting dynamic where the filibuster—often criticized by both parties when convenient—would shield Republican achievements from Democratic attempts at repeal.

Legal Uncertainties: Supreme Court's Role

The ultimate resolution of both the California and Texas redistricting battles likely rests with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's decision could have far-reaching implications for redistricting nationwide and for the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court is separately considering Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could fundamentally alter how states approach race-conscious redistricting. The case challenges whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires creating districts where racial and ethnic minorities have a chance to elect their preferred candidate. If the Court strikes down this provision, both California's Proposition 50 maps and the maps drawn by California's independent redistricting commission could be vulnerable to constitutional challenge.[51]

Emily Rong Zhang, an assistant professor of law at UC Berkeley School of Law, assessed the Republican challenge to California's maps as facing "long odds" under current law. "It would be a very hard case to win," she said. "But if the Supreme Court changes the law, then the likelihood of success here might be higher."[52]

Legal scholars note the distinction between partisan gerrymandering—which the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot address—and racial gerrymandering, which remains subject to constitutional scrutiny. Texas argues its redistricting was purely partisan, while plaintiffs point to evidence of racial considerations. California's situation inverts this dynamic, with Democrats claiming partisan motives while Republicans allege racial gerrymandering.[53]

The Purcell principle, established in Purcell v. Gonzalez, generally prevents courts from changing election rules too close to an election. Texas invoked this principle in seeking Supreme Court intervention, noting that the candidate filing deadline of December 8, 2025, was imminent and that early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary would begin on February 17, 2026.[54]

Judge Brown rejected this argument in his Texas ruling, writing that applying Purcell here "would lead to absurd results" and "also incentivize legislatures to redistrict as close to elections as possible."[55]

Campaign Finance and Public Opinion

The battle over Proposition 50 became one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in California history. As of November 3, 2025, approximately $167.3 million had been raised for and against the measure. Supporters received $122.8 million, while opponents received $44.5 million.[56]

The largest donor to the support campaign, the House Majority PAC along with the associated HMP for Prop 50 PAC, contributed $16.5 million—13.4 percent of the campaign's total funds. The funding came primarily from national Democratic organizations and labor unions with an interest in flipping House control.[57]

Public opinion on the measure divided along predictable partisan lines, though support extended beyond traditional Democratic constituencies. The St. Helena Star Editorial Board, describing its seven-member board as "spanning a wide spectrum of political labels," unanimously supported Proposition 50. "What surprised us was how quickly our seven-member board arrived at a unanimous 'Yes, California must push back,'" the editorial stated. "Such agreement shows just how high the stakes have become."[58]

However, the League of Women Voters of California declined to take a position on Proposition 50, despite having consistently opposed mid-cycle redistricting. The organization cited the need to stay aligned with national and state Leagues that were challenging unfair maps in Texas and other states.[59]

Economic Factors and 2026 Predictions

Beyond redistricting, economic conditions will significantly influence the 2026 midterm outcome. A recent economic forecasting model developed by Professor Paul Whiteley suggests Democrats are positioned to gain approximately ten House seats based on projected economic growth rates.[60]

The model, which analyzes the relationship between economic growth and House seats won by Democrats from 1946 to 2024, shows that low growth rates favor the opposition party. The International Monetary Fund predicts U.S. growth will slow to 1.8 percent in 2026—a rate that historically strengthens the Democratic challenge to a Republican administration.[61]

The forecasting model demonstrates 80 percent accuracy in predicting House seats, with economic growth weighted so that Democrats benefit from high growth when they control the White House but are penalized by low growth when Republicans are in power. The impact of growth on seats when Democrats controlled the House was 0.75, demonstrating that economic conditions dominate electoral outcomes.[62]

President Trump's economic approval ratings have already shown signs of weakness. Recent polling indicates 50 percent of respondents expect Trump's approval to decrease over the next year, compared to only 32 percent who expect it to increase.[63]

Implications for Governance and Democracy

The unprecedented mid-decade redistricting battle has sparked broader concerns about American democratic norms and institutions. Critics argue that allowing states to redraw districts outside the decennial census process fundamentally undermines electoral stability and voter confidence.

"Two wrongs don't make a right," argued opponents of Proposition 50 who believed California should not abandon its independent redistricting commission regardless of Republican actions in other states. This position emphasizes principled commitment to reform over tactical political advantage.[64]

Supporters counter that California had a responsibility to set a national standard against partisan gerrymandering and that unilateral disarmament would leave Democrats permanently disadvantaged in a system where Republicans control more state legislatures. "If other states are engaging in partisan gerrymandering, we need to fight back," argued proponents of the measure.[65]

The debate touches fundamental questions about federalism, with states historically maintaining authority over congressional redistricting while courts ensure compliance with constitutional requirements. The current situation tests whether political escalation has limits and whether institutions like independent redistricting commissions can survive partisan pressures.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor and former Biden administration official, assessed California's legal vulnerability as limited: "Most of the law around redistricting is up to the state, not the federal government, not federal law, and we just changed state law. I don't think there are many grounds for a legal challenge against Prop. 50 to succeed."[66]

However, the Justice Department's intervention and the pending Supreme Court case on the Voting Rights Act introduce significant uncertainty into these predictions.

Conclusion: An Uncertain Political Landscape

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, multiple variables create an unusually uncertain political landscape. The outcome of the California and Texas redistricting cases could shift five to ten House seats in either direction—enough to determine majority control given the narrow partisan divide. Historical patterns and current polling favor Democrats, but economic conditions, candidate quality, and unforeseen events could alter the trajectory.

The Supreme Court's forthcoming decisions on both redistricting cases and the broader Voting Rights Act question will shape not only the 2026 elections but the framework for American redistricting for years to come. Whether the Court embraces or rejects race-conscious districting will have profound implications for minority representation and partisan balance nationwide.

For Republicans, the challenge is unprecedented: defend a historically narrow majority during a midterm election while facing the typical headwinds that buffet the president's party. Internal divisions and legislative struggles provide Democrats with ample material for campaigns arguing that Republicans cannot govern effectively.

For Democrats, the opportunity is substantial but not guaranteed. Converting favorable conditions and polling into actual victories requires candidate recruitment, effective messaging, and voter mobilization. The party must also navigate the complex politics of redistricting—championing democratic reforms while engaging in the very partisan map-drawing they previously criticized.

The American people will render their verdict in November 2026, determining whether partisan escalation in redistricting produces backlash or acceptance, and whether traditional midterm patterns hold in an increasingly polarized era. The stakes extend beyond partisan control to fundamental questions about how American democracy functions and whether institutions designed to limit partisanship can survive in the current political environment.

---

Sources and Citations

[1] "California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)," Ballotpedia, accessed November 24, 2025, https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_50,Use_of_Legislative_Congressional_Redistricting_Map_Amendment(2025)

[2] "Republicans currently hold 219 seats while the Democrats have 213," Bloomberg Government, "Balance of Power in the U.S. House and Senate," November 10, 2025, https://about.bgov.com/insights/congress/balance-of-power-in-the-u-s-house-and-senate/

[3] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "Justice Department Sues Governor Gavin Newsom for California's Race-Based Redistricting Plan," November 13, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-governor-gavin-newsom-californias-race-based-redistricting-plan

[4] "2025 California Proposition 50," Wikipedia, November 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_California_Proposition_50

[5] Ibid.

[6] "Texas appeals ruling that Trump-backed redistricting is racial gerrymandering," KUT Radio, November 18, 2025, https://www.kut.org/politics/2025-11-18/new-texas-congressional-map-favoring-republicans-blocked-by-federal-court

[7] "2025 California Proposition 50," Wikipedia.

[8] "Texas ruling brings Newsom's Prop. 50 back into the spotlight," SFGATE, November 18, 2025, https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/judge-blocks-new-texas-map-calif-prop-50-21195016.php

[9] "2025 California Proposition 50," Wikipedia.

[10] "US federal lawsuit challenges race-based redistricting in California Proposition 50," JURIST, November 5, 2025, https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/11/federal-lawsuit-challenges-race-based-redistricting-in-californias-proposition-50/

[11] Ashley Zavala, "California GOP sues after voters approve Prop 50 measure for new congressional districts," KCRA, November 6, 2025, https://www.kcra.com/article/california-prop-50-lawsuit-gop-party-redistricting/69263579

[12] Ibid.

[13] "US federal lawsuit challenges race-based redistricting in California Proposition 50," JURIST.

[14] "California Republicans sue to block Proposition 50 after voters approved the redistricting measure," Daily News, November 5, 2025, https://www.dailynews.com/2025/11/05/california-republicans-sue-to-block-proposition-50-after-voters-approved-the-redistricting-measure/amp/

[15] Ashley Zavala, "California GOP sues after voters approve Prop 50," KCRA.

[16] "2025 California Proposition 50," Wikipedia.

[17] U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of California, "Justice Department Sues Gov. Gavin Newsom for California's Race-Based Redistricting Plan Enacted with Proposition 50's Passage," November 13, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/justice-department-sues-gov-gavin-newsom-californias-race-based-redistricting-plan

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Jane C. Timm and Ben Kamisar, "Federal court blocks Texas Republicans' redrawn congressional map," NBC News, November 18, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/federal-court-blocks-texas-redrawn-congressional-map-rcna244673

[21] Ibid.

[22] "Federal Court Blocks Texas Gerrymander," Democracy Docket, November 18, 2025, https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-court-blocks-texas-gerrymander-for-2026-appeal-expected/

[23] Ibid.

[24] Eleanor Klibanoff, "Federal court blocks new Texas congressional map for 2026," Texas Tribune, November 18, 2025, https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/18/texas-redistricting-ruling-lawsuit-el-paso-court-2026-midterms/

[25] "2025 California Proposition 50," Wikipedia.

[26] Office of the Attorney General of Texas, "Attorney General Ken Paxton Will Appeal Federal Court Decision Stalling Texas's New Congressional Map to SCOTUS," November 18, 2025, https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-will-appeal-federal-court-decision-stalling-texass-new-congressional-map

[27] "Alito pauses lower court ruling that would have blocked Texas redistricting," ABC News, November 21, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alito-pauses-lower-court-ruling-blocked-texas-redistricting/story?id=127770611

[28] "California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)," Ballotpedia.

[29] Ibid.

[30] "Texas appeals ruling that Trump-urged voting map is racial gerrymandering," Houston Public Media, November 18, 2025, https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/elections/2025/11/18/536479/federal-court-blocks-texas-from-using-new-congressional-gerrymander-in-2026-midterms/

[31] Ibid.

[32] "(Updated) Of Course They Did: A Federal Court Just Annihilated the GOP's Texas Redistricting Plan," RedState, November 18, 2025, https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2025/11/18/federal-court-blocks-texas-redistricting-plan-n2196317

[33] "Texas appeals ruling that Trump-urged voting map is racial gerrymandering," Houston Public Media.

[34] "Supreme Court Restores Texas Map for Now," Texas Policy Research, November 22, 2025, https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/supreme-court-restores-texas-map-for-now/

[35] "(Updated) Of Course They Did: A Federal Court Just Annihilated the GOP's Texas Redistricting Plan," RedState.

[36] "Proposition 50 lawsuit faces new questions after Texas ruling," Spectrum News 1, November 18, 2025, https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/politics/2025/11/19/redistricting-texas-california-prop-50

[37] "Balance of Power in the U.S. House and Senate," Bloomberg Government.

[38] William Galston, "What history tells us about the 2026 midterm elections," Brookings Institution, August 28, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-history-tells-us-about-the-2026-midterm-elections/

[39] Ibid.

[40] "The 2026 Midterms: The most likely midterm scenario may be an electoral draw where the Democrats win the House, but not the Senate," USAPP-American Politics and Policy Blog, London School of Economics, October 30, 2025, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2025/10/30/the-2026-midterms-the-most-likely-midterm-scenario-may-be-an-electoral-draw-where-the-democrats-win-the-house-but-not-the-senate/

[41] "Who's leading in the 2026 midterm elections?" YouGov, November 12, 2025, https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53374-2026-midterm-elections

[42] Paul Steinhauser, "Top political handicapper reveals prediction for 'volatile' 2026 battle for House majority," Fox News, February 6, 2025, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-political-handicapper-reveals-prediction-volatile-2026-battle-house-majority

[43] Ibid.

[44] "Republicans start 2025 with the smallest House majority since 1931," ABC News, January 9, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/538/republicans-start-2025-smallest-house-majority-1931/story?id=117464711

[45] "Narrow 220-215 GOP House majority may have a tough time governing," The Pennsylvania Independent, December 2024, https://pennsylvaniaindependent.com/politics/gop-house-majority-tough-time-governing-pa/

[46] Ibid.

[47] "Just how small will the House Republican majority be in 2025?" MSNBC, November 25, 2024, https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/just-small-will-house-republican-majority-2025-rcna181678

[48] "Democrats launch effort to counter conservative 'Project 2025,'" The Hill, June 11, 2024, https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4714841-democrats-launch-effort-to-counter-conservatives-sweeping-project-2025/

[49] U.S. Congressman Jared Huffman, "A group of House Democrats steps up to try to stop Project 2025 and a Trump White House," June 11, 2024, https://huffman.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/a-group-of-house-democrats-steps-up-to-try-to-stop-project-2025-and-a-trump-white-house

[50] Rep. Yvette Clarke, "Opinion | Trump is carrying out Project 2025. Here's how we Democrats are fighting back," MSNBC, February 6, 2025, https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-project-2025-democrats-fight-rcna190846

[51] David A. Carrillo and Stephen M. Duvernay, "How an upcoming Supreme Court ruling could wipe out a Prop 50 victory," San Francisco Chronicle, November 1, 2025, https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/supreme-court-proposition-50-california-21124614.php

[52] "5 California election takeaways after voters pass Proposition 50," CalMatters, November 6, 2025, https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/11/california-proposition-50-takeaways/

[53] "Federal court bars Texas from using new Republican-friendly US House map in midterms," CNN Politics, November 18, 2025, https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/18/politics/texas-redistricting-trump-court-ruling

[54] "Texas asks Supreme Court to allow it to use redistricting map struck by lower court as racially discriminatory," SCOTUSblog, November 21, 2025, https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/texas-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-it-to-use-redistricting-map-struck-by-lower-court-as-racially-discriminatory/

[55] Jane C. Timm and Ben Kamisar, "Federal court blocks Texas Republicans' redrawn congressional map," NBC News.

[56] "California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)," Ballotpedia.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Paul Whiteley, "Economic forecasts point to a Democrat win in the 2026 US midterm elections," The Conversation, November 21, 2025, https://theconversation.com/economic-forecasts-point-to-a-democrat-win-in-the-2026-us-midterm-elections-270178

[61] Ibid.

[62] Ibid.

[63] "The Midterm Loss Rule: What Do Voters Expect in 2026?" Sabato's Crystal Ball, University of Virginia Center for Politics, May 13, 2025, https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/the-midterm-loss-rule-what-do-voters-expect-in-2026/

[64] Rick Hasen, "How big a deal is California's Proposition 50," UCLA Law, October 2025, https://law.ucla.edu/news/how-big-deal-californias-proposition-50

[65] Ibid.

[66] "Prop 50 unlikely to be impacted after judges block Texas from using its new House map, expert says," ABC7 Los Angeles, November 18, 2025, https://abc7.com/post/prop-50-impacted-judges-block-texas-using-new-house-map-expert-says/18175003/

---

Word Count: 8,847