U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Block New U.S. House Districts in California

Posted on by February 4, 2026

On February 4, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the request of some California Republicans to block new boundaries for U.S. House districts. Tangipa v Newsom, 25A839.

Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Block New U.S. House Districts in California — 20 Comments

  1. That is…surprisingly rational coming from the current SCOTUS majority, but it makes sense. They let Texas’ partisan gerrymander stand, so it followed that they had to let California’s too, or risk losing whatever iota of credibility and perceived nonpartisanship they had left; they’re already seen by many people as being too subservient to the Trump regime.

  2. another 1857 Dred Scott type result from SCOTUS hacks

    1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged cracked/packed gerrymander dists = 1/4 or less control laws

    much worse extremist primary math

    Z-E-R-O ***COMPETITIVE*** G DISTS IN ALL STATES IN GENL ELECTIONS ???
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

  3. (ORDER LIST: 607 U.S.)
    WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026
    25A839 ORDER IN PENDING CASE
    TANGIPA, DAVID, ET AL. V. NEWSOM, GOV. OF CA, ET AL.
    The application for writ of injunction pending appeal
    presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is
    denied.

  5.  UNDER 25 PCT MINORITY RULE IN NOV 2026 RIGGED ELECTION ???
    ————

    CA USA REPS, NOV 2024 ELECTION, SUMMARY V.1 
     52 RIGGED CRACKED/PACKED GERRYMANDER DISTS 
    LINE  VOTES   PCTTO   * ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE PCTS 
    1    4,114,660   *25.5  27 LOW D* WIN-3 D*D, 1 D*O, 23 D*R
    2    3,600,548              22.3  + 16 HIGH D WIN-16 DR
    3    7,715,208   *47.8  = 43 D WIN
    4    1,715,952              10.6  + 9 R WIN-8 RD, 1 RR
    5    9,431,160              58.4  = 52 WIN
    6    1,423,501                8.8  11 D LOSE-3 D*D, 8 RD
    7    4,212,132              26.1  + 40 R LOSE-23 D*R, 16 DR, 1 RR
    8         44,450                0.3  + 1 OTH LOSE- 1 D*O
    9    5,680,083              35.2   = 52 LOSE 
    10  15,111,243              93.6   = 104 ALL 
    11    1,028,801                6.4   + NONVOTES – 3 DD, 1 RR 
    12  16,140,044            100.0   = TURNOUT-TO 
    13       310,385              1.92   TO/52 = PCT AVE PA 100.0  
    14    9,138,709              56.6   54 D- 3 D*D 
    15    5,928,084              36.7   49 R- 1 RR 
    16 NO WIN VOTES OVER 310,385 PA 100.0
    17 MAXWIN 274,796 / MINWIN 89,484 = 3.07
    18 MAXLOSE 188,067 / MINWIN 89,484 = 2.10
    19 37 LOSE ( 9 D, 28 R ) GOT MORE VOTES THAN MINWIN 89,484
    20 6,489,366 * 40.2 27 LOW DTS-2 D*D, 1 D*O, 19 D*R, 2 DR, 2 RD, 1 RR
    21 8,621,877 53.4 25 HIGH DTS- 1 D*D, 4 D*R, 14 DR, 6 RD
    22 25 HIGH DTS 8,621,877 / 27 LOW DTS 6,489,366 = 1.33
    23 MAXDT 422,313 / MINDT 167,507 = 2.52
    24 MAXLOSE 188,067 / MINDT 167,507 = 1.12
    25 5 LOSE ( 3 D, 2 R ) GOT MORE VOTES THAN MINDT 167,207
    26 https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/
    27 statewide-election-results/general-election-nov-5-2024/statement-vote
    28 SUPER-WORSE EXTREMIST MATH IN CA TOP 2 PRIMARY
    29 — ESP WHEN GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS ARE CHANGED.
    30 *** SAVE DEMOCRACY REMEDY – PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION—
    31 TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH
    32 ALL VOTES COUNT —– BOTH MAJORITY RULE [DEMOCRACY]
    33 AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION.

  6. I do have to agree with AZ though that the gerrymandering itself really shouldn’t be happening at all, regardless of who’s doing it. But the nation would have been sent into even more political turmoil if SCOTUS had applied a double standard here.

  8. “That is…surprisingly rational coming from the current SCOTUS majority, but it makes sense.”

    On an issue as intensely watched as this, they have to show consistency to be credible.

  9. There are a couple of ways that gerrymandering can be reduced. The simplest would be to require that congressional districts have a minimum geographical size – such as 1,000 square miles. This would compel states to make fewer districts, which could be multi-member or overlay districts.

    Another way that might help would be to adopt the Wyoming Rule – which would expand the size of the House by about 120 members. This would make the apportionment among states more proportional overall.

  10. Of course “Joshua H” (Stock) approves when Democrats change rules midstream but not Republicans.

  12. Abstract

    It is possible to end gerrymandering by removing the power to draw district lines from government officials and giving this power to the voters themselves. In a self-districting system, as described herein, each voter chooses which constituency the voter wants to join for purposes of legislative representation. These constituencies can be geographically based as in traditional districting systems, but they also can be based on other attributes—whatever associational communities the voters themselves wish to form. If enough voters join a constituency to form more than one district based on the constitutional principle of equally populated districts, then this constituency can be subdivided into districts based on strict computer-implemented geographical criteria without any possibility for gerrymandering. This self-districting system not only complies with the U.S. Constitution; it is also consistent with the Act of Congress that requires single-member districts. Thus, there is no federal law obstacle to prevent states from adopting a self-districting system for both their congressional delegation and their own legislative chambers. In fact, self-districting is a way to avoid the problem of minority vote dilution, a task likely to become more difficulty given anticipated changes in the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the topic. Because of the increasingly pernicious nature of gerrymandered districts, which cause voters—and most especially minority voters—serious representational harms, the alternative of self-districting, where voters are empowered to make these representational decisions for themselves, deserves serious consideration.
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4328642

  14. @DFR,

    How might this work for Oklahoma’s five representatives? When and how would voters declare there affinity group? Could they change?

  15. with the tyrant Trump non-stop crisis AND RIGGED GERRYMANDER SO-CALLED ELECTIONS —

    see the fall of the olde Roman Republic — ESP FATAL MONARCH/OLIGARCH MACHINATIONS

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

    ESP ABOUT HALF DOWN *CONST” STUFF

    ALL sorts of legislative / executive / judicial defects / FATAL SOP VIOLATIONS

  18. DFR said:

    “This self-districting system not only complies with the U.S. Constitution; it is also consistent with the Act of Congress that requires single-member districts.”

    IMO, this self-districting voting can only comply with the current requirement for single member districts if a voter gets only one vote in a multi-member state wide contest.

  19. @WZ,

    I believe you live in Massachusetts, so I’ll use that as an example. Imagine everyone gathered in a central location – say Worcester. When you checked-in you would be assigned a room based on your residence. We’ll send you to District 7, which is a ginormous room holding a few hundred thousand people. You all vote, and elect one representative. It probably would be more efficient to have these rooms distributed throughout the state, so District 7 might be located in Salem or Brockton. Or with modern communication you could have smaller rooms located in each election precinct.

    But back to the original idea. When you check in, you are assigned District 9, surnames ending in T-Z. This complies with the US Constitution, since the representatives are chosen by the “People of Massachusetts” so long as there are roughly the same number of voters in each room (SCOTUS has said that the people of the state can’t be choosing their representatives if 200,000 choose one, and 300,000 choose another. They have said that if Massachusetts voters each had 9 votes, it would also would comply with the US Constitution). An at-large election of this sort would not comply with federal statute.

    If Massachusetts created “districts” based on surnames it would be challenged in court. Even if it was ruled legal, Congress could change the law. But Congress could also require states to elect representatives by surname. At one time, Congress set standards for districts which include compactness and contiguity, implying areal districts. But they have eliminated those standards. Edward B. Foley, author of the law review article, asserts that “districts” formed on a basis other than area are districts.

    But lets use a 3D model. We have a three story building in the shape of Massachusetts (or perhaps a 3-layer cake). Democrats are placed on the bottom floor, Republicans on the middle floor, and unenrolled and others on the third floor. Each voters in placed at their relative spatial position. We apportion 9 representatives: 6 unenrolled, 2 Democrats, 1 Republican. We divide the Democratic floor/layer into two rooms. The Republicans elect one representatives statewide. The unenrolled are divided into six rooms. The districts might be drawn by an automatic non-partisan system.

    The 9 “districts” are contiguous in a volumetric sense, and if we drew floor plans of the three floors, they would look like districts we are familiar with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.