Republican lawmakers in California filed a lawsuit on Tuesday asking the state Supreme Court to step in and stop Democrats from moving forward with a plan to redraw congressional districts by delaying key votes at the state Capitol this week.

This marks the latest move in their full-court press to prevent the new map from passing. Republican lawmakers have taken their case to the media, pleaded with voters, and vowed to fight back with everything in their legal arsenal. They have also tried to stall votes in the state legislature, though Democrats hold the supermajority in both the state Senate and Assembly.

Recommended Stories

• Vance to campaign against Ossoff in Thursday trip to Georgia
• Five California Republicans targeted by Newsom redistricting plan
• Gavin Newsom channels his inner Trump with social media strategy. Here's why it may backfire

Tuesday’s emergency petition, filed by state Sens. Tony Strickland (R-CA) and Suzette Martinez Valladares (R-CA), as well as Assemblymen Tri Ta (R-CA) and Carl DeMaio (R-CA), argues that Democratic lawmakers violated 30-day disclosure rules in the state constitution and asks the court to block all attempts at getting new districts through by Friday’s deadline.

Republicans filed the challenge with help from the law firm founded by Harmeet Dhillon, who is the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice.

“The stark issue for this court to decide in this case is whether this constitutional right is merely the right to publication of a bill number rather than publication of the proposed legislation in that bill,” the petition says.

California’s constitution requires a 30-day period for the public and lawmakers to review new legislation before it can be acted on. Republicans have argued that the proposed legislation must be published for 30 days before the legislature can hear or act on it. They have also alleged that Democrats tried to get around the rule by replacing two unrelated bills with the redistricting proposal, and that the  “gut-and-amend” maneuver violates the voters’ constitutional right to transparency and deliberation on “consequential legislation.”

“This case does not challenge the use of gut and amend for all purposes, but is confined to the narrow case where the Legislature blatantly and intentionally uses it to circumvent a constitutional right of the people to adequate time to review proposed legislation — a right that is inherently meant to restrain the Legislature from ramming legislation into law without an opportunity for the public to review it,” the emergency petition says.

Chris Micheli, an adjunct professor at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, told the Washington Examiner that he wasn’t sure how strong an argument the Republicans have and predicted it would likely be denied.

“The timeline has never been applied to ‘gut and amends.’ They are saying the gut and amend restarts the 30-day clock, and that’s never the way it’s ever been interpreted or applied,” he said. 

On Friday, California Democrats introduced a package of bills to create new House districts that they believe could boost the Democratic headcount in Congress.

The three bills Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) wants the legislature to pass this week would ask voters to approve new boundaries for 2026, 2028, and 2030, which could net Democrats five new House seats. The first bill calls for a Nov. 4 special election, the second for approving a proposed map, and the third for signing off on reimbursement for county election costs.

The move is a countermeasure by California Democrats to “neutralize” the pressure Trump has publicly put on Texas Republicans and other red states to redraw their congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The California map was drawn by congressional Democrats with input from those in the state legislature. If approved, it would turn three Republican-held seats into safe Democratic seats and turn two others into seats that lean Democratic.

Micheli said lawmakers are expected to hold floor votes on Thursday and deliberate for up to six hours.

Despite being outnumbered, Republicans are still trying to stall the bills’ movement while vowing multiple legal challenges.

For example, DeMaio asked the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel’s Office to declare the new map illegal and said he would go to court over it. 

“By concocting this partisan redistricting scam, Gavin Newsom and Democrat politicians are openly violating the California Constitution and their oath of office,” DeMaio said. “Any vote … on this corrupt plan would be unlawful and unconstitutional — and I’m demanding the Legislature stand down.”  

He argued that under a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2008, only a bipartisan commission can draw district lines. 

DeMaio also said he is linking with outside legal experts who are preparing other “court challenges.”  

“If they try to ram this through, they’ll be dragged in before a judge in no time,” DeMaio said. “Voters created the Citizens’ Redistricting Commission to stop exactly this kind of political corruption. We will not let Newsom and his cronies shred the constitution and rig our elections.”  

The National Republican Congressional Committee also vowed to challenge Newsom’s plan in court as well as the ballot box, saying it disenfranchises voters to prop up the governor’s future political aspirations.

Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the San Francisco Chronicle that despite the list of legal challenges Republicans are threatening, they may not have a case.

FIVE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICANS TARGETED BY NEWSOM REDISTRICTING PLAN

He said the legislature can ask California voters to change the state Constitution and that if a constitutional amendment is approved by voters, “then there is no state law problem with amending the earlier constitutional amendment.”

Hasen added that Newsom’s proposal could be challenged on other legal grounds, such as the rule limiting California ballot measures to a single subject, but said it would ultimately be up to the voters to decide.