Republican lawmakers in California have filed a lawsuit asking the State Supreme Court to stop Democrats from moving ahead this week with a plan to redraw congressional districts.
It was the latest move in an escalating national battle over redistricting that began this summer when President Trump asked Texas leaders to help Republicans maintain control of the House of Representatives by reshaping congressional districts and delivering five additional seats for their party.
California Democrats responded on Monday by introducing a package of bills to create new district boundaries that could help Democrats flip five seats in their state. Democratic state lawmakers, who control more than two-thirds of the California Legislature, plan to pass the bills on Thursday and put the proposal before voters in a Nov. 4 special election.
The emergency petition, filed by four Republican state legislators, argues that the State Constitution prohibits the Legislature from acting on the redistricting bills until Sept. 18 because new legislation requires a 30-day review period. The lawmakers said that more time was needed for the public to review the proposal, which would change the way some Asian American and Hispanic communities are represented….
At issue is a technical question of whether a bill is “introduced” at the time it is first assigned a bill number and drafted with preliminary language, or whether it must be fleshed out in full to begin the 30-day clock in the State Constitution. The state’s Constitution also has a rule that requires the final text of a bill be published for 72 hours before lawmakers can vote on it.
In the final weeks of the legislative session, California lawmakers for decades have rewritten bills, top to bottom, in a process colloquially referred to as “gut and amend.”…
The 72-hour rule is a more recent requirement, intended to ensure that such last-minute bills receive at least three days of review. To adhere to that rule, the full Assembly and Senate are waiting until Thursday to vote on the redistricting bills that were introduced on Monday.
Democrats cannot afford to wait beyond this week because of the preparation time that elections officials need for a special election in November….
New Section 2 Lawsuit Filed in Montana
On August 14, 2025, the Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and two Native voters filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging Chouteau County’s unfair, at-large voting system for the Board of County Commissioners. The suit alleges the system unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of Native voters and has denied them any representation on the county commission for more than a decade.
Under the current at-large system, all voters in Chouteau County cast ballots for all three commissioners, instead of electing commissioners by district. As a result, Native voters — who now make up approximately one-third of the county’s voting-age population — have consistently been unable to elect a candidate of their choice. The three current commissioners have all been elected and re-elected under this system since at least 2010.
“We’re filing this lawsuit because Choteau County continues to hold elections in which the Native votes don’t count,” said Chippewa Cree Tribe Chairman Harlan Gopher. “The Chippewa Cree Tribe filed this lawsuit to prevent this local government from trampling on the civil rights of our people. A fair redistricting process must respect the boundaries and voice of our Nation.” …
“Can Federalism Protect Subnational Liberal Democracy from Central Authoritarianism?”
Jim Gardner has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Liberal democracy is eroding rapidly around the globe, including in the United States, raising alarming questions about whether American democratic institutions will endure. Nevertheless, some have speculated that federalism may protect liberal democracy at the subnational level when the central government turns authoritarian. This article argues that such optimism is premature: there is no a priori basis on which to predict the effect of central democratic backsliding on the quality of subnational democracy. Federal theory does suggest that internal heterogeneity in basic political commitments is likely to produce an escalating pattern of severe and possibly intractable intergovernmental conflict. Empirical evidence bears this out: while subnational governments often resist nationally authoritarian policies, authoritarian central governments tend to punish and suppress this resistance. Nevertheless, although successful subnational resistance in particular cases cannot be ruled out, the most likely outcome of central democratic backsliding appears to be some kind of competitive authoritarianism regardless of whether the state is federal or unitary. Thus, federalism may offer little meaningful protection against long-term democratic backsliding. Additional research is needed to reach firmer conclusions.
Looking forward to reading this!
“Trump vows to change how elections are run. The US Constitution doesn’t give him that power”
“Republicans say they’ll sue to block California redistricting plan. Do they have a case?”
Bob Egelko for the SF Chronicle:
“By concocting this partisan redistricting scam, Gavin Newsom and Democrat politicians are openly violating the California Constitution and their oath of office,” DeMaio said in a news release. “Any vote … on this corrupt plan would be unlawful and unconstitutional.”
He argued that the state Constitution, under a ballot measure approved by the voters in 2008, allows only a bipartisan commission to draw district lines and does not permit them to be redrafted for political purposes.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also said Newsom’s plan would be challenged in court as well as the ballot box. Newsom “is shredding California’s Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions,” Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., chair of the committee, said on X.
But Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA who has written widely on election law issues, said the Legislature can ask California voters to change the state Constitution by placing an amendment on the ballot with two-thirds majority votes in each house. Newsom and legislative Democrats introduced their measure on Monday.
“If it’s a constitutional amendment approved by voters, then there is no state law problem with amending the earlier constitutional amendment,” Hasen said….
Another election law professor, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who was a national policy adviser for democracy and voting rights under President Joe Biden, said DeMaio was correct that the California Constitution currently prohibits legislators from redrawing district lines.
“But that’s exactly why the Legislature is proposing a constitutional amendment,” Levitt said. “And I’m not aware of any limitation on the Legislature to propose such an amendment for the voters to consider.”…
Hasen of UCLA said Newsom’s proposal might be challenged on other legal grounds, such as the rule limiting California ballot measures to a single subject. But he said opponents’ strongest argument would probably be a political one – that the voters should reject a plan to suspend the nonpartisan redistricting program they approved 17 years ago.
DeMaio appeared to agree on Monday.
“If we stop it in court, fine,” he said at a press conference in the state Capitol. “But more than likely it will have to be stopped at the ballot box.”…
ELB Book Corner: Karen Sebold: “The Foxes Are Guarding the Henhouse: How Elected Officials Weakened the Federal Election Commission”
I am pleased to welcome Karen Sebold to ELB Book Corner, writing about her new book, Evaluating Campaign Finance Oversight: An Assessment of the Federal Election Commission. (Use that link with code LXFANDF30 for a 30 percent discount). Here is the second of three posts:
I want to thank Rick Hasen for the opportunity to post about my new book, “Evaluating Campaign Finance Oversight: An Assessment of the Federal Election Commission.” My posts explore the book’s main themes using edited excerpts from the text.
Today’s post examines one of the primary themes of the book: campaign finance laws are only effective if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is effective. In the U.S., the FEC is the primary agency enforcing campaign finance law. The FEC regulates and oversees the campaign finances of presidential candidates and members of Congress. These elected officials are the primary fundraisers and spenders of campaign contributions in U.S. elections; therefore, they, or their surrogates, are also the primary focus of FEC investigations. These officials could easily exploit the agency, as they control its administrative resources. This leads many observers to believe that the foxes are guarding the henhouse (Oldaker 1986; La Forge 1996; Sheppard 2007).
In my book, I illustrate how the agency’s resources do not match the major increases in election spending. Since 2000, most election cycles have surpassed the previous cycle’s spending level, with over $5 billion spent in the 2000 election and more than $18 billion by the 2020 election (https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/cost-of-election). Yet, the FEC’s budget and staff have minimally increased, if not stagnated, over the last two decades. The structure of the agency and legal requirements for decision-making exacerbate the issues at the agency. The agency is led by a panel of six partisan commissioners, with up to three Democrats and up to three Republicans. Four commissioners must agree on a decision when enforcing campaign finance law. The requirement that four commissioners agree to an enforcement decision, while only three are allowed from one party, is challenging, especially given that the commissioners are deciding on claims of potential violations against their parties, candidates, or the independent political committees and nonprofit groups that support them. If an investigation is blocked or an enforcement action is stopped because four of the commissioners can not agree, that is as good as getting a case dismissed for the alleged violator. According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the GOP commissioners employed this tactic 29 times as of March 2024 to block the FEC from investigating or taking action against President Trump (https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/gop-commissioners-have-single-handedly-blocked-fec-action-against-trump-29-times/).
The appointment of commissioners has been notoriously a slow process that often leaves the FEC without a quorum (i.e., four commissioners). This leads to a partisan imbalance from the appointment of too few commissioners (especially Democratic commissioners), as the Republicans have dominated the commissioner panel for years. I found these Republican commissioners were more likely to vote against enforcing the law. Critics of the agency (La Forge 1996; Skahan 2018) argue that the commissioner panel is structurally flawed, and as a result, alleged violators often go unchecked. The past few years do not inspire hope that it will improve, as the foxes in charge of the agency continue to undermine it. The FEC was essentially shut down during the majority of Trump’s first administration, and as of May 2025, it is now shut down again due to a lack of a quorum. In December 2024, Republican Sean Cooksey left before his term expired. In February 2025, Trump fired Democratic Commissioner Weintraub. Weintraub was serving well past the expiration of her term, but President Trump has given no indication that he will be appointing her replacement anytime soon. Republican Commissioner Allen Dickerson left in April 2025 before his term expired. The numerous shutdowns at the FEC lead me to believe the easiest way for the foxes to guard the henhouse is to keep the hens out of it.
UPDATE: “Dickerson and Cooksey did not exit early as mistakenly stated in the post but left when their terms expired.”
References:
La Forge, Amanda S. 1996. “The Toothless Tiger – Structural, Political and Legal Barriers to Effective FEC Enforcement: An Overview and Recommendations.” The Administrative Law Journal 10, 1: 351- 384.
Oldaker, William, C. 1986. “Of Philosophers, Foxes, and Finances: Can the Federal Election Commission Ever Do an Adequate Job?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 486, 1: 132-145.
Sheppard, Maurice C. 2007. The Federal Election Commission: Policy, Politics, and Administration. Lanham, MD.: University of America Press Inc.
Skahan, Kelly Ann. 2018. “Ineffective by Design: A Critique of Campaign Finance Law Enforcement in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom.” Washington International Law Journal 27, 2: 577-607.
California Democrats’ Proposed Retaliatory Gerrymander Against Texas Could Be Triggered if Another Democratic State Engages in Its Own Partisan Gerrymander
California Democratic leaders are preparing to put a measure before voters that would temporarily suspend congressional redistricting maps drawn by an independent commission for the rest of the decade as retaliation for Texas (or other Republican) states engaging in their… Continue reading
“The collapse of Common Cause’s vision for US democracy”
Steven Hill:
No organization has led the effort for redistricting reform more than Common Cause. I have known many Common Cause leaders, both nationally and in California where I live. They have all been good and admirable people who… Continue reading
Q & A with Me in New York Magazine: “The Supreme Court Could Supercharge the GOP’s Redistricting Power Grab”
I spoke with New York’s Intelligencer‘s Nia Prater:
What are the potential ramifications if the Court weakens Section Two or ultimately does away with it?
First of all, it would be a huge blow for minority representation. A big… Continue reading
“Newsmax pays $67 million to settle defamation case linked to 2020 election coverage”
NPR:
Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle one of the last outstanding defamation lawsuits against a news organization for airing false claims that the 2020 election was rigged.
Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems – the same voting-technology company that… Continue reading
No, President Trump Can’t Ban Mail in Ballots or Voting Machines, as His Truth Social Post Suggests He Might Try to Do
This morning President Trump put out a post on Truth Social that shares some of his usual and debunked conspiracy theories about voter fraud in elections. Part of the post says that he will “lead a movement” to get rid… Continue reading
DOJ increases pressure to vacuum up voter files
A month ago, I noted that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division had sent demands to a bunch of states for copies of the voter files. These letters were pretty unusual. I didn’t think DOJ’s ostensible rationale for demanding the files… Continue reading
ELB Book Corner: Karen Sebold: “Why Elon Musk Got Away with His $1 Million Give-Away: Loose Campaign Finance Laws and Even Looser Enforcement”
I am pleased to welcome Karen Sebold to ELB Book Corner, writing about her new book, Evaluating Campaign Finance Oversight: An Assessment of the Federal Election Commission. (Use that link with code LXFANDF30 for a 30 percent discount). Here is… Continue reading
“Russia is quietly churning out fake content posing as US news”
Politico:
A pro-Russian propaganda group is taking advantage of high-profile news events to spread disinformation, and it’s spoofing reputable organizations — including news outlets, nonprofits and government agencies — to do so.
According to misinformation tracker NewsGuard, the campaign —… Continue reading