New Phase Unlocked: Lawfare Begins Against Newsom’s Cynical Redistricting Play

Emergency petition accuses lawmakers of sidestepping 31-day public review mandate, seeking Supreme Court intervention to halt votes on gerrymandered maps.

🕒 4.5-minute read

Apologies, when I discuss legal filings combined with political analysis, it gets a little longer than usual. I don’t know how else to do it… Jon

A Legal Stand Against Legislative Overreach

In California’s heated battle over electoral maps, a group of lawmakers has launched a legal attack on what they see as a blatant breach of the state constitution. An emergency petition for a writ of mandate, filed on Monday, is now before the California Supreme Court, calling for a stop to legislative moves on two bills that might redraw congressional districts and call for a speedy November special election, asking voters to amend the State Constitution, and approve the rushed maps. The leaders behind it—Senators Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares, and Assembly members Tri Ta and Kate Sanchez—make the case that AB 604 and SB 280, the contents of which were entirely changed on Monday, are basically brand-new laws masquerading as tweaks to existing ones. “Newsom is destroying democracy in California if he’s successful,” said Senator Strickland. “Because what will end up happening is we won’t have any competitive seats throughout the state of California, and the voters will have no voice.” Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez echoed Strickland’s concern, ““The whole reason voters approved Propositions 11 and 20 was to guarantee public involvement, fairness, and transparency in how political maps are drawn.”

Put together by Michael Columbo, a partner at the Dhillon Law Group (founded by Harmeet Dhillon, who’s on leave right now as an Assistant U.S. Attorney General), and their team, the petition [right here, for legal nerds] points to Article IV, Section 8(a) of the California Constitution. That section says no bill can be heard or voted on until 31 days after it’s introduced, unless three-quarters of each house votes to skip that rule. The petition argues that this key constitutional safeguard is being dodged, putting at risk the openness voters deserve. A constitutionally protected right.

The Stakes of a Partisan Power Grab

Like I laid out in my previous piece, “The Four and a Half Things That Could Stop California’s Redistricting Power Grab,” lawsuits like this one are a key defense against self-interested moves by Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders. California’s congressional seats are already heavily Democratic, and these new maps might tip it even further to something like 48-4, further locking in one-party rule in California and killing off real competition. As Assemblyman Carl DeMaio put it, “Folks can’t have a say if they don’t know what’s happening,” backing the petition’s point that rushing these bills robs Californians of the chance to dig into changes that could cement gerrymandered districts through 2026, 2028, and 2030.

The Constitutional Mandate for Deliberation

The heart of the petition rests on a straightforward rule from Section II.A: “The California Constitution Mandates That the Public Have 31 Days to Consider New Legislation Absent a Vote of Three Quarters of Each Chamber of the Legislature.” The point is to “make sure the public and lawmakers get enough time to go over and think about proposed laws before any action is taken.”

A pointed take from the California Policy Center (CPC) backs this up, noting the 31-day window is a constitutional promise giving folks “enough time after a bill’s introduced to figure out its impact.” The Center says Newsom’s plan “doesn’t just sideline independent and conservative voters in California, but everyone in the state.”

Unmasking the Gut-and-Amend Maneuver

The petition goes after the “gut-and-amend” trick in Section II.B.ii: “Respondents Can’t Get Around This by Gutting and Amending AB 604 and SB 280.” These were bills from February that had nothing to do with this, but they got gutted and filled with redistricting stuff on Monday. The petition says this dodges the 31-day rule and breaks what the constitution means (and says, in plain English). The CPC notes “gut and amend” happens “when amendments wipe out a bill’s entire content and swap in something totally different,” making Article IV, Section 8(a) pointless if it lets them skip the wait.

Pulling from Brown v. Superior Court in 2016, they claim big changes turn bills into something new that needs a full new look. The CPC’s look at Proposition 8 in 1962, shot down 60.77% to 39.23% when it tried to cut the wait to 20 days, shows public pushback: “Less time to study means more bills sneaking through unchecked… Folks need time to think over and assess new laws.”

The Urgent Need for Writ Relief

In Section II.C, the petition states: “Writ Relief is Appropriate Now.” Since lawmakers are set to vote any day now, it’s asking for a pause until September 18, calling on the court to uphold constitutional standards. Section II.D cautions: “Petitioners Will Suffer Irreparable Injury if Relief Isn’t Granted Soon,” pointing to lost public trust and how hard it is to fix botched elections. It names Secretary of State Shirley Weber, Assembly Chief Clerk Sue Parker, and Senate Secretary Erika Contreras as the ones being sued, stressing their duty to stick enforce constitutional deadlines.

So, Does It Matter?

This lawsuit puts California’s Supreme Court to the test—three picks by Newsom, three by Democrat Jerry Brown, and one by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger—to see if they’ll protect these procedures from partisan overreach. If it’s tossed out, that says constitutional deadlines are really not actually deadlines, opening the door to shady power plays that stick taxpayers with the bill for special elections and court fights, plus whatever last minute policy-chicanery is in the late-filed bills. Sticking to the 31-day rule makes sure decisions come from real understanding, not hasty plans. In a state hurting from budget problems, keeping these safeguards is crucial to stop democracy turning into a weapon for those in power, and to keep accountability at the heart of how we govern.

This lawsuit is the first, but will hardly be the last. And you can be sure that there will be litigation in federal court, that could quickly head up the food change to a United States Supreme Court with a very different ideological makeup than our state’s top court.