Breaking: California Republicans, Citizens File Supreme Court Petition to Block Newsom-Backed Redistricting Measure from November Ballot
- PAUL PRESTON
- 2 minutes ago
- 6 min read
AENN
Assemblyman Tri Ta, Attorney Michael A. Columbo with the Dhillon Law Group, Senator Tony Strickland. (Photo: Katy Grimes for California Globe)
Lawyers argue Legislature violated constitution bypassing independent redistricting commission, and asks voters to vote on two separate issues
By Katy Grimes, August 25, 2025 4:04 pm
California Republicans announced at a press conference Monday they have filed an emergency Writ of Mandate with the California Supreme Court to stop the special election currently scheduled for November 4th because the California Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom violated the California Constitution in putting this ballot initative on the ballot.
Last Thursday, the legislature passed the 3-measure package on Congressional redistricting: Senate Bill 280, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, and Assembly Bill 604.
Prior to passage of the three measures, Republican lawmakers and the Dhillon Law Group filed an emergency petition filed with the California Supreme Court to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders from rushing through the unconstitutional redistricting plan without the 30–day public review period required by the California Constitution, the Globe reported.
The California Supreme Court denied Republicans’ injunction request to halt Governor Gavin Newsom’s and Democrats’ redistricting scheme late Wednesday.
Attorney Michael A. Columbo with the Dhillon Law Group was joined Monday by two of the the petition’s plaintiffs: Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) and Assemblyman Tri Ta (R-Orange County) at the press conference, along with Corrin Rankin, the Chairwoman of the California Republican Party.
Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares and Assemblyman Carl DeMaio are the other elected legislators plaintiffs.
The people already decided that politicians shouldn’t draw their own districts, Attorney Columbo said at the press conference. “Not only does Respondent’s redistricting gambit violate every one of these core constitutional restrictions, but they also rammed this complex scheme comprising hundreds of pages of data through the Legislature in just 4 days, in violation of the Constitution’s Article IV, § 8(a) requirement for 30 days’ public notice of new legislation,” Columbo said.
Senator Strickland addressed the single-subject rule violation: “Based on the two different questions in the bill. I’d vote differently on each,” he said, showing the obvious conflict. “The time to decide is election time, not rigging elections.”
He also posited that the “temporary” suspension of the independent California Redistricting Commission won’t be temporary at all “once politicians get that power.”
“We already have the Gold Standard [with the independent California Redistricting Commission]: hundreds of hearings over months, with the goal to keep cities and counties together.”
Assemblyman Tri Ta tied the issue to his own immigrant story: “I fled a country that never had free elections to come here for freedom. What happened last week on the Assembly floor was outrageous and a complete violation of the California Constitution. And now, on top of that, we are being forced to spend more than $200 million on a special election when Californians are asking for relief on affordability, crime, and homelessness.”
“This is not a Republican or Democrat issue,” California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said, emphasizing the nonpartisan nature of the lawsuit. “It’s about good governance. Californians overwhelmingly voted for transparency and an independent commission to stop politicians from drawing their own districts. What we see now are backroom deals made without voters’ knowledge, and that is wrong. Californians deserve better than to have their rights trampled in the dark.”
Attorney Columbo explains the purpose of the emergency the lawsuit introduction:
Redistricting as regulated by the California Constitution is not just a take-it-or-leave-it decision over a proposed map. Long before a map is proposed for a final decision or certified, regardless of who draws it, redistricting is a laborious process that requires extensive technical analysis and careful balancing of complex constitutional and statutory mandates. Because it is among the most consequential acts of government—with the potential, if not the goal, of determining who will win an election before it is even held, it is inherently a tumultuous and contentious process. At its core, notwithstanding one-person-one-vote and the equal protection of the laws, the outcome of the redistricting process determines which voters indeed will likely choose our representatives in Congress and who likely will not. In a vast state like California, with nearly 40 million people and, at 52representatives, by far the largest congressional delegation of any state, work required and the public tumult the redistricting process causes is also commensurately vast.
Considering the stakes, the disruption, and the public’s distaste for ahistory of self-serving partisan gerrymandering, the people of California enshrined in their constitution fundamental rules by which they would have the redistricting process undertaken in this state: (1) The work of redistricting and as well as the power that goes with it were intentionally taken away from the partisan California Legislature and given to an independent citizens redistricting commission; (2) barring a court order, the inherent tumult of the redistricting process could only occur once per decade; (3) to protect their rights the redistricting process would involve extensive public engagement; and (4) the people expressly prohibited partisan gerrymandering.
Attorney Mark Meuser, also with the Dhillon Law Group, broke down the lawsuit on X:
“We argue that there is plenty of California Supreme Court precedent where the Court has removed unconstitutional ballot initiatives because ‘Voter consent cannot convert an unconstitutional [statute] into a constitutional one.’
This redistricting ballot initiative is unconstitutional because it asks voters to vote on two separate issues. Voters are asked to encourage Congress to pass a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to require all states to have nonpartisan redistricting commissions for Congress. Voters are also asked to support the California’s legislature’s new maps that disregard the hard work of the citizen commission. There are many voters in California who want to vote yes to the first question and no to the second question but they will not be allowed to split their vote. This ballot initiative violates the single subject rule.
We argue that the redistricting ballot initiative is unconstitutional because at the time that the legislature drew the maps, they did not have the authority to draw the maps. “It is well established that where our State Constitution ‘specifically confers power’ upon a government entity, the ‘the Legislature cannot directly or indirectly remove that power from the [commissions] control.'”
Furthermore, even if the legislature had the authority to draw the lines, at the time that they drew the lines, they violated the requirements set out in the California Constitution for how the congressional maps are to be drawn: The lines were not drawn in “open and transparent process” Congressional Districts 2, 9, 30, 40, and 47 are not functionally contiguous. The new maps disrupted numerous communities of interest that the commission worked hard to keep together. While the Commission is not allowed to consider political parties when drawing lines, the new maps drew lines contrary to this principle.
We argue that the redistricting ballot initiative is unconstitutional because the California Supreme Court has ruled that the California Constitution only allows one redistricting per decade. See Legislature v. Deukmejian.
Last week I filed a writ with the Supreme Court that the Court should stop the legislature from voting on the ballot initiative. We argued that the legislature had failed to wait 30 days after introducing a new bill before holding committee hearings on the matter. The Supreme Court ruled that our Writ was premature. Now that the legislature has voted on the initiative and Gavin Newsom has signed the bills into law, we have renewed our petition that the California Constitution does not permit gut and amend. As such, the entire special election needs to be stopped.
In a republic, the constitution is designed to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority. However, in Gavin’s world, might makes right. Gavin is trying to use his might to destroy the California Constitution so that he can amass more power for himself and his party. There are only three things that can be done now to stop Gavin’s partisan power grab: Sue (which I have done and will continue to do) Vote No on Proposition 50 Congress needs to step in and enforce Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.'”
Today, President Trump announced that the Department of Justice will sue California to block the redistricting ballot initiative. “I think I’m going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon, and I think we’re going to be very successful in it. We’re going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That’s going to happen,” he said.
Governor Newsom replied, “BRING IT” On X/Twitter.