BREAKING A lawsuit has now been filed against Gavin Newsom's administration for trying to launch a special election that will gerrymander California for Democrats before the 2026 midterms.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 25, 2025
If it's victorious - Gavin's ballot measure would be removed from the election.
"We… pic.twitter.com/d3Nmxd1SsT
Gerrymandering in the United States is governed by a complex and often conflicting set of state and federal laws, which is why a practice that may be illegal in one state is permissible in another. The legality of gerrymandering congressional maps in California versus Texas is primarily a result of their differing state constitutions and legal frameworks. The key distinction lies in the type of gerrymandering and the legal authority to redraw districts.
California's Legal Framework
California's state constitution requires that its congressional and state legislative districts be drawn by a nonpartisan independent commission.1 This commission was established by a voter-approved act.2 The commission's purpose is to create districts that are as fair and balanced as possible, with strict rules against drawing lines for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party, incumbent, or political candidate.3 This means that partisan gerrymandering is expressly prohibited under California law. Any attempt by the state legislature to bypass this commission and redraw maps to favor one party, as was recently proposed, would be considered illegal under the state's constitution and would require voter approval to override the existing commission's authority.
Texas's Legal Framework
In contrast, Texas does not have a similar independent commission. Instead, the Texas legislature is responsible for drawing the state's congressional maps.4 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it does not have the authority to prevent states from drawing districts that favor one political party, meaning that partisan gerrymandering is not illegal under federal law.5 Since Texas law allows the legislature to draw the maps, it can do so with the specific intent of creating districts that benefit one party.6 This is why Texas's recent efforts to create maps that favor Republicans, while highly controversial and facing legal challenges, are not automatically considered illegal on the basis of being partisan.7
Racial vs. Partisan Gerrymandering
A critical legal distinction to understand is between racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering.
-
Racial Gerrymandering: The 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 make it illegal to draw districts in a way that intentionally dilutes the voting power of a particular racial or ethnic group.8
-
Partisan Gerrymandering: The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2019 case Rucho v. Common Cause, ruled that federal courts cannot hear cases of partisan gerrymandering.9 The Court stated that while partisan gerrymandering is inconsistent with democratic principles, it is a "political question" that must be addressed by Congress and state legislatures, not the federal judiciary.10
While partisan gerrymandering is permissible under federal law, the proposed maps in Texas have been challenged in court on the grounds that they constitute illegal racial gerrymandering.11 Plaintiffs argue that the new maps dilute the voting strength of Black and Latino communities, which would be a violation of federal law.12
