Did A Texas Court Just End the Gerrymandering War? (Reform Roundup)
Shawn GriffithsEarlier this week, a three-judge panel blocked a mid-decade gerrymander by the Texas Legislature designed to bolster the Republican Party’s razor-thin majority in the U.S. House, setting the stage for what could become a complex legal matter.
U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote:
[P]olitics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
If the ruling stands – that is to say if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t overrule it – then Texas will have to go back to using maps that the state legislature drew back in 2021 and will likely pause any further attempts at redistricting until after the next census. (Lawmakers won't be in session again until 2027.)
Many questions remain over the lasting implications this ruling will have on other states that have moved forward with their own mid-decade gerrymander, especially in California where Proposition 50 was pitched specifically as a response to Texas.
Gov. Gavin Newsom initially proposed temporarily suspending California’s independent congressional map created by the voter approved Citizens Redistricting Commission as a trigger response if Texas acted first.
However, right before the California Legislature approved the amendment that would become Prop 50 – a congressional map that gives Democrats an advantage over 92% of the state’s congressional delegation – the trigger language was removed.
IVN News was the first to report on the change right before the amendment passed the legislature and was signed by Newsom.
The language that was removed from the law stipulates that the amendment will “become operative only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map that takes effect after August 1.” That is, August 1, 2025.
The law and Prop 50 still technically have the language “in response to the congressional redistricting in Texas.” However, it changed the language from a trigger response to a preemptive response as Texas hadn’t fully adopted its new map when the amendment reached Newsom's desk.
Back in August, I wrote: “Texas Democrats will challenge their state's mid-cycle gerrymander in court when it happens, but win or lose, it won’t matter in California,” because even if the Texas maps were overturned, Prop 50 would remain.
Following the ruling out of Texas, many analysts agreed. The people who played a role in drawing the new map in California, like Redistricting Partners owner and Political Data Inc Vice President Paul Mitchell, also confirmed it.
For many people, this news was presented to them for the first time as it was scarcely reported in the California press leading up to the November 4 special election. Meanwhile, prominent opponents of Prop 50 are not trying to dispute it:
Even if the Texas decision doesn’t affect Prop 50, the ruling's impact on this bipartisan race to the bottom will evolve over time. It could cause other states looking to redraw their own maps to pause while more politicians are bucking party leadership and refusing to take part.
Prop 50 still faces its own legal challenges. The U.S. Department of Justice has taken legal action to intervene in and join the California Republican Party’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the measure.
"California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. "Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand."
The DOJ argues that the new district boundaries created by Prop 50 constitute a racial gerrymander and violate both the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
"Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50," said Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
The Supreme Court set the modern precedent in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that federal courts will not weigh the political questions of partisan gerrymandering. Generally speaking, if redistricting is overturned it is because the courts deemed it a racial gerrymander.
Continuing to adopt a more Trumpian style in social messaging, Newsom’s press team responded to the DOJ’s lawsuit, saying, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”
Prop 50 Didn’t Kill The California Redistricting Commission – But Lack of Funding Might
We are disappointed to see California step back from the independent redistricting process that has empowered voters and strengthened public trust in fair representation. We urge the Governor to work closely with the Citizens Redistricting Commission over the coming year to ensure this temporary measure remains just that - temporary - and that the integrity of the process endures through future emergencies. As we continue our ten-year terms, we look forward to working with our fellow commissioners, the Governor, and the Legislature to support and strengthen the 2030 Commission.” - Commissioners Patricia Sinay (D), Neal Fornaciari (R), Angela Vazquez (D), Alicia Fernandez (R), Russell Yee (R), Antonio LeMons (NPP), Derric Taylor (R), Peter Blando (R)
There is a common misconception that California Prop 50 suspended the entire Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). It didn’t. Prop 50 suspended 1 of 4 maps the commission is in charge of every 10 years.
The commission draws the district lines for Congress, State Assembly, State Senate, and State Board of Equalization. Prop 50 gerrymandered the congressional districts only.
Correcting these misconceptions is not always easy for members of the commission, who serve 10-year terms (the commissioners who drew and approved the maps in 2021 are still active commissioners), because of a lack of funding and resources.
Commissioner J. Ray Kennedy previously penned an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee in 2024, revealing what many Californians didn’t know: The legislature downsized the CRC based on the Department of Finance’s claim that it had completed its work.
But Kennedy said in the op-ed and in remarks sent exclusively to IVN that the commission’s job doesn’t end when new maps are approved.
“After we completed our maps, it was our understanding that we would have funding for four meetings a year; yet, since July of 2023, we have had funding for only one meeting per year (with no funding for any preparatory work for that one meeting),” he wrote.
But it is not just meetings being denied (which are important to planning). When its funding was cut, the CRC lost its only staffer, and according to Commissioners Patricia Sinay and Neal Fornaciari, it hindered preparations for 2030.
“One of our biggest challenges is we are underfunded as a commission,” Sinay said. “We’re barely given the budget to have one meeting a year. On top of that, we don’t have legal counsel to an extent.”
They also said they have no direct line to lawmakers. If they want to talk about funding, they have to go to the Department of Finance – which as explained, is a big reason its funding was cut in the first place and so far, has told the commission "No."
Sinay and Fornaciari are on the CRC's Continuity Transition Committee, which means they plan the work that the commission will do until the State Auditor chooses the next 14 commissioners in 2030.
Right now, this means they are in a “holding pattern” until the Auditor decides how their selection process will work, but Fornaciari said what they want to do is help set up better training for commissioners when it comes to redistricting.
“Specifically, the act of drawing districts and what that looks like,” he said, “so the commissioners are in a much better place when they get the census data and start directing the line drawers on drawing lines.”
This is a critical part of the commission’s job. Its members approve new maps every year, but they also identify ways to improve the process. This could include hiring a transition staff to speed things up and preparing the next commissioners for public outreach.
“We got over 35,000 pieces of public input, so we had to set up a public database for that,” Fornaciari said. “That was a lot of work and took a lot of time.”
Hiring a transition team. Training new commissioners on drawing districts. Public education efforts. Building a database that can store and sort tens of thousands of pieces of input from Californians (meaning hundreds daily). It all requires resources.
And whether voters supported or opposed Prop 50, the CRC has the added hurdle of navigating misinformation that emerged during the special election.
“My first foray out after I decided to be very public about being “No” on Prop 50 was to debate the head of the Democratic Party,” Sinay said. “He said something along the lines of calling me a former commissioner.”
I quickly turned to him and said I am not a former commissioner. I am a current commissioner. We have a 10-year term.”
She said that his jaw dropped because it seemed he was not aware of how the CRC worked because of the narratives formed by proponents of Prop 50 during the campaign, just like Republicans continue to say that Prop 50 abolished the CRC.
On top of a lack of funding, Sinay says commissioners have also “lost the support of the good governance organizations" they had originally "that could help spread the right information." She added that "even those groups were doing misinformation.”
Sinay said at the end of the day there is something that hasn’t been said by commissioners that needs to be said:
It is not to the benefit of the legislature for us to be prepared for 2030. Any party that is in power does not support independent redistricting, be it Democrats or Republicans, because it is taking power away from the politicians and giving it to the people.”
Fornaciari added that their attempts to restore their funding so far have not been successful.
‘I’m Done With Partisanship’: Nina Linh Leaves Democrats to Run as an Independent in CA-40
The redistricting war between Republicans and Democrats is one of the reasons California congressional candidate Nina Linh announced she is leaving the Democratic Party to run for the state’s 40th Congressional District as an independent candidate.
Read more about Linh on her website.
Linh says her decision reflects a growing national movement of voters who are exhausted by a political system that puts party loyalty above problem-solving.“If there’s ever been a time for independent leadership, it’s now,” she stated.
People are exhausted by the divisiveness, hyper-partisanship, and endless blame games that put power before people. I’m done with the partisanship. I’m putting people first.”
The 40th District, which includes parts of Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, is one of the few districts that was made more Republican by Prop 50. According to data from Ballotpedia it is expected to go from R+2% to R+12% based on the 2024 election results in its new boundaries.
The district is currently represented by Republican U.S. Rep Young Kim.
Linh says her run for Congress is motivated by conversations with families worried about rising costs and increasingly unstable government institutions. Meeting with voters across the district, she says residents voiced the same concerns everywhere she went.
“They’re tired of feeling ignored,” she said. “They’re worried about the cost of living, their children’s future, and a government more focused on winning arguments than solving problems.”
Linh described a hunger for honesty, compassion, and common sense, not more party-driven warfare. She sharply criticized both parties for manipulating congressional maps and using shutdowns as bargaining weapons rather than governing tools.
“While party leaders redraw maps and cling to talking points, they’ve forgotten why they were elected — to serve the people,” Linh said. “Government must meet the real, daily needs of Americans. That promise doesn’t come with an R or a D next to it.”
She challenges current officeholders who have allowed tribal politics to take precedence over public service. “I won’t wait for permission to do what’s right. I won’t wake up every day waiting for someone to tell me how to do my job,” she remarked.
My question to those in office is simple: what good is your title if you’re not doing the work? Be brave. Be bold. Start listening and serve your constituents. Or else – I will.”
Linh will appear on her district's primary ballot with every candidate running for the congressional seat, regardless of party. If she advances to the general election, she will face only one other opponent under California’s Top Two primary system.
Quick Reform Takeaways
Speaking of Top Two, Petition Drive Begins to Ditch Closed Primaries in Oklahoma
A petition signature drive is underway in Oklahoma for State Question 836, an initiative filed by Oklahoma United to implement a nonpartisan, Top Two primary similar to what is in use in California and in Oklahoma’s largest cities.
SQ 836 survived a legal challenge in September when the Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit filed by the state Republican Party, who tried to claim the initiative summary was intentionally misleading. The court disagreed, clearing the path for signature gathering.
“Oklahomans are ready for an open primary system where every voter matters and has a voice,” said Margaret Kobos, founder of Oklahoma United.
We are excited to visit communities across the state to ensure every voter has a chance to sign our petition and put this initiative to a vote of the people.”
Picture provided by Oklahoma United.
“It Is the Most Broken Part of Our Political Process that Primaries Aren’t Open”
Paul Rieckhoff, Founder, CEO and Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), joined the Warrior Money podcast co-hosted by former U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy and investor Dan Kunze.
Rieckhoff called closed primaries the “most broken part of our political process.” Murphy said he supports a semi-open system in which registered party members vote in their respective party’s primaries, but independents can pick a ballot in these taxpayer-funded elections.
Murphy is part of a growing number of current and former elected officials in Congress expressing the need for open primaries, including current U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who like Murphy, is from Pennsylvania – a closed primary state.
Fitzpatrick has co-sponsored legislation that requires states to use open taxpayer-funded primaries in federal elections, along with Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), and Jared Golden (D-Maine).
Former U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (I) has been very outspoken this year about the need for open primaries.
In Minnesota, “RCV has come into its own”
Minneapolis Star Tribune featured an op-ed from FairVote Minnesota Executive Director Jeanne Massey, in which she discusses her take on ranked choice voting in the state, where it is in use in Minneapolis and Minnetonka:
Ranked-choice voting gave voters real power on Election Day. Two cities. Two very different outcomes. One shared truth: RCV has come into its own.”
Minneapolis adopted RCV in 2006 and has used it in elections since 2009 for nearly two dozen city offices. This includes mayor and single-winner city council elections. Proportional RCV is also used in some races.
Minnetonka has used RCV since 2021 for mayor and city council.
RCV remains the fastest growing new voting method in the U.S. Recently, a legislative hearing in Massachusetts was held to hear the petitions of 8 cities to adopt it for their own elections, as well as a bill that allows local jurisdictions the freedom to implement RCV at their own discretion.
You Might Also Like
