On the election night of November 4, California Governor Gavin Newsom emerged victorious, but the battle over Proposition 50 is just beginning.
On November 5, a coalition of individuals from various sectors in California filed a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 50, arguing that the racial districting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Clause of the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case named “Tangipa v. Newsom” presents a compelling argument against the redistricting plan proposed by the California Democratic Party.
Since Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry first drew a district that resembled a salamander back in 1812, gerrymandering has been a legal but controversial tactic used by politicians to gain an advantage over their opponents. However, courts are working to prevent racially-based districting.
In the case of “Cooper v. Harris” in 2017, US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that a state cannot use race as the predominant factor in districting unless there are compelling reasons. The California Proposition 50 redistricting plan has been criticized for prioritizing race in the process, with reports indicating that Democratic consultant Paul Mitchell spearheaded the effort to create districts where Latinx or minority populations are in the majority.
The California redistricting under Proposition 50 does not meet the three standards set by the Supreme Court in “Thornburg v. Gingles” in1986 to prove that such obvious racial districting is reasonable. The third requirement of the Gingles standard specifies that minority voters must be able to show that white majority voting as a bloc usually defeats the minority-preferred candidate.
California’s demographic makeup shows a minority-majority state, with non-Hispanic white residents making up only 34.7% of the population compared to Latinx at 39.4%. In the 18 counties where districts were redrawn under Proposition 50, Latinx voters form a majority or relative majority in 11 of them.
Minority candidates often succeed in various regions of California. At the federal level, both the US Senator Alex Padilla and 15 members of Congress from California are Latinx. The government officials at various levels in California reflect diversity, including three African American and two Asian American officials at the state level. In the State Senate, half of the legislators are ethnic minorities, with a majority being minority representatives in the State Assembly, including David J. Tangipa, the first Polynesian lawmaker in California.
Even if racial districting is deemed necessary, the existing district maps drawn by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission in California comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Thus, there is no urgent state interest exacerbating the racial divide through the Proposition 50-based districting.
Apart from the established legal precedents, the Supreme Court can further eliminate unfair racial districting through ongoing cases. In the case of “Louisiana v. Callais” in 2024, the court might declare the current interpretation of the Voting Rights Act invalid for violating the 14th and 15th Amendments.
By following precedents like in the Gingles case, the Supreme Court could put an end to unfair racial districting, where districts are deliberately distorted for racial purposes. Proposition 50 segregates citizens into predominantly race-based districts, causing voters within these districts to suffer damages defined in the Constitution. Voters are informed that their ballot is less important than achieving predetermined racially-based outcomes, disregarding community interests, geographic proximity, and individual political preferences in favor of racial division.
Should the Supreme Court limit the application of the Voting Rights Act or invalidate it entirely, the legal basis of Proposition 50 would collapse. It is imperative that federal district courts issue declarations and injunctions to render the racial districting provisions of Proposition 50 invalid. The best solution to address these constitutional issues is to restore district maps drawn by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Constitution mandates that the government treat citizens as individuals rather than dividing them by race for political gain.
In summary, the legal battle over Proposition 50 continues, challenging the constitutionality of Governor Newsom’s redistricting plan which places race as a primary consideration. The case raises important issues regarding equal protection and the rights of minority voters, seeking the restoration of district maps drawn by an independent commission. The outcome of this legal dispute will have significant implications for California’s electoral landscape and the protection of voting rights.