Republicans sue to block Newsom's fast-track California redistricting plan
The emergency petition argues that the process being used in the California assembly violates laws requiring a 30-day period between the introduction of legislation and voting on it.
'Instead of a months-long transparent and participatory process overseen by an independent citizens redistricting commission for such a sensitive matter, the public would be presented instead with an up or down vote on maps unilaterally prepared in secret by the Legislature,' states the filing on behalf of senators Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares, assemblyman Tri Ta and assemblywoman Kathryn Sanchez.
California governor Gavin Newsom announced his state's redistricting plan last week in terms on social media mocking Donald Trump's flamboyance, intent on using the voting power of the US's most populous state to counteract Texas' redrawn map, which would be expected to deliver a net gain of five congressional seats to Republicans in 2026.
Newsom praised the California effort on Monday, calling it a necessary response to Trump's influence over redistricting in Texas and other Republican-led states.
'We are not going to sit idle while they command Texas and other states to rig the next election to keep power,' Newsom said, adding that the proposal gives Californians 'a choice to fight back'.
To do so in time for a special election in November, the state assembly must pass the plan this year. As has been a common practice near the end of legislative terms, California lawmakers took an existing bill introduced earlier in the session and gutted it of its language, replacing it with legislation that overrides the state's neutral redistricting commission to present maps to voters.
The Mandeep Dhillon law firm filing the suit was previously owned by Harmeet Dhillon, who is now assistant attorney general overseeing the US Department of Justice civil rights division. Dhillon was known for her efforts to sue California's university system to overturn policies which barred controversial conservative speakers from appearing. She sold her firm to her brother Mandeep Singh Dhillon after Trump nominated her to take over civil rights enforcement in his administration.
The suit does not challenge 'gut and amend' in principle, but rather asks the court 'to enforce an external constitutional constraint against the Legislature to protect the people's rights'.
Internal polling presented to lawmakers showed voters favored the measure 52% to 41%, with 7% undecided, according to the local television station KCRA.
Republicans in California condemned the proposal as an assault on the state's voter-approved independent redistricting commission and said they plan to introduce legislation that advocates for creating similar map-drawing bodies in all 50 states.
'Governor Newsom, this is nothing more than a power grab,' Strickland said during a Monday news conference in Sacramento.
He warned the redistricting tit-for-tat sets a dangerous precedent that will not be easily undone. 'The Golden Gate Bridge toll was supposed to be temporary,' he added. 'You're still paying the toll.'
The legislature could hold floor votes to send the measure to voters for approval as soon as Thursday, KCRA reported.
House Republicans currently hold a razor-thin three-seat majority in the US House and Trump has pushed to redraw district boundaries ahead of next year's midterm elections, in which the president's party typically loses seats. Republicans are also poised to redraw congressional districts in Ohio, Missouri and Florida, as well as potentially Indiana.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's Chief of Staff pushes to protect Bondi amid Epstein fallout
Attorney General Pam Bondi was able to hold on to her job despite a sandstorm of public outcry from Donald Trump's base for her to be sacked over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles was Bondi's biggest cheerleader amid the torrent of calls for Bondi's scalp - and she went to bat for the 'blonde Barbie' with 'nerves of steel' in a rare on the record interview. 'You know, she looks like Barbie. She's blonde and beautiful, and I think people will underestimate her because of how she looks,' Wiles told The New Yorker magazine . The White House Chief of Staff added: 'But she's got nerves of steel, and she has stood up to some withering situations with a fair amount of grace.' Known as Trump's 'Ice Maiden' working behind the scenes to instill cold hard discipline and fierce loyalty, Wiles admitted to magazine that Bondi's ties to the president run even deeper than hers. Asked about Bondi's relationship with Trump, Wiles said: 'I have a long one. Hers is longer.' Trump's own personal loyalty can be mercurial, but for now Wiles has been the bulwark against Bondi's dismissal, beating back public campaigns from right-wing personalities like Laura Loomer. As Florida girls, Wiles and Bondi's ties also span years. Both worked as lobbyists at Ballard Partners, a Florida-based firm founded by Republican fundraiser Brian Ballard, who also personally contributed to Trump's campaigns. Wiles worked for Ballard from 2011 to 2019. Bondi joined the firm in 2019 following her tenure as Florida's Attorney General. It appears that several Trump allies – including his own daughter Ivanka – were pushing for Bondi to get a role in his first administration. Even Ballard said at the time: 'I would imagine her opportunities are unlimited. There's nobody closer to Trump in Florida than Pam Bondi.' But a Trump ally told the New Yorker that back then, when Bondi's name would come up, the president would 'roll his eyes and shake his head.' 'I always took it as he didn't take her seriously—he didn't think she was a person of substance,' they claimed. The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Mail's request for comment on the sprawling New Yorker piece on Bondi, and whether it took Trump some time to warm up to her joining his team the first time around. Fast forward to 2024 after former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz withdrew his nomination to head-up Trump's Justice Department in his second term, Bondi emerged as the clear replacement. Those involved in the selection claim that Trump did not consider anyone else. Bondi became one of the most controversial Cabinet officials, however, once the DOJ and FBI released a memo concluding it found nothing new in its review of the Epstein files. This sent MAGA world ablaze with claims a cover-up was afoot and that Bondi was not being as 'transparent' as Trump promised she would be. Loomer led the calls for her to be fired and multiple reports emerged claiming Bondi lost her secure footing with Trump.
Reuters
2 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump administration cuts California grant over transgender policies
WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Thursday terminated a grant for a program in California intended to prevent teenage pregnancy and childhood sexually transmitted infections, saying the state refused to remove "radical gender ideology" from its curriculum. The Personal Responsibility Education Program educates young people on abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, with particular focus on children who are homeless or living in foster care or in areas with high teen birth rates. The grant was worth $12 million, said Andrew Gradison, an acting assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "If you continue to push radical ideology on our children, we will not pay for it anymore," he told Fox & Friends, saying the program included "radical gender ideology" without providing details. Gradison said that his department is near completing a review of every state's curriculum, adding that by early next week, nearly 40 states will be notified that they need to change their curriculum or face the same consequences. It is the latest salvo in the Trump administration's fight against transgender rights as well as the state of California, led by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. Representatives for Newsom's office could not be immediately reached. Before the announcement, President Trump said any California school district that does not adhere to his administration's transgender policies will not receive federal funding, but gave no other details. Representatives for the White House did not immediately respond to requests for detail following Trump's comment, posted to his social media platform. U.S. schools receive the vast majority of their funding through local and state sources, but do receive some money from the federal government. Trump's administration sued California in July over its policy allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls' school sports, alleging that it was a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. In February, the Republican president signed a directive to strip federal funding from any school that allows transgender women or girls to compete in female sports.
The Guardian
2 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Court throws out $500m civil fraud penalty against Donald Trump
An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against Donald Trump, ruling on Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level appellate division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515m and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive'. After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355m in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515m. The total – combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr – now exceeds $527m, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175m bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the court of appeals. The court took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York's attorney general, Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman turned politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud'. Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a months-long trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me'. He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's justice department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James's personal attorney, Abbe D Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign'. Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insisted that no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contended that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On 10 January, he was sentenced in his criminal hush-money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing against the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5m judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the supreme court to hear his appeal. The president is also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3m for additional defamation claims.
