Trump Administration Loses Two Federal Rulings in California Over Redistricting and Voter Data
Updated (2 articles)
Federal Court Upholds Proposition 50 and New Congressional Map On Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2026, a three‑judge panel in California affirmed Proposition 50 and the state’s newly drawn congressional districts, rejecting the Justice Department’s claim of racial gerrymandering in a 2‑1 decision. The judges concluded challengers failed to demonstrate that race was the predominant factor in the redistricting process [1]. The ruling marks the first of two back‑to‑back defeats for the Trump administration in the state [1].
Judge Carter Blocks DOJ Request for Voter Information The following day, Jan. 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter dismissed the Justice Department’s bid to obtain sensitive California voter data, finding the request violated federal privacy statutes [1]. Carter ruled that any attempt to amend the petition would be futile, effectively ending the DOJ’s effort to access the records [1]. The decision underscores heightened judicial scrutiny of federal attempts to collect state voter information.
DOJ Retains Right to Appeal Both Decisions Despite the setbacks, the Justice Department announced it will consider appeals on both the redistricting and voter‑data rulings [1]. California Attorney General Rob Bondi denounced the redistricting judgment as unconstitutional and asserted the state will pursue all legal avenues [1]. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration, framed the outcomes as victories for California’s election policies [1].
State Leaders Emphasize Data Privacy and Democratic Integrity California Secretary of State Shirley Weber issued a statement highlighting the importance of protecting Californians’ data privacy and upholding democratic norms [1]. Weber argued the federal actions threatened the rule of law and voting rights, reinforcing the state’s commitment to safeguarding electoral information [1]. The administration’s response signals continued tension between federal and state election authorities.
Timeline
2025 – Trump directs the Justice Department to remake congressional maps nationwide, aiming to create more conservative‑leaning House districts and boost GOP seats[2].
2025 – The DOJ issues subpoenas for detailed voter data and files lawsuits against the District of Columbia and at least 21 states that refuse to share information, invoking federal privacy concerns[2].
2025 – Democrats warn that the DOJ’s data demands could intimidate voters and signal a willingness to intervene in the 2026 midterms, even suggesting possible deployment of troops or aggressive enforcement actions at polls[2].
2025 – California voters approve a ballot measure to redraw congressional lines in response to the federal redistricting push; Gov. Gavin Newsom warns of a potential federal crackdown at polling places[2].
2025 – Election‑law experts and the Democratic National Committee expand in‑house teams to monitor misinformation and defend voting rights ahead of the 2026 midterm elections[2].
Jan 16, 2026 – A federal court in California upholds Proposition 50 and the state’s newly drawn congressional map in a 2‑1 decision, rejecting racial‑gerrymandering claims and finding challengers failed to prove race was the predominant factor[1].
Jan 16, 2026 – California Attorney General Rob Bonta (Bondi) condemns the ruling as unconstitutional, saying the state impermissibly drew its map based on race and announcing a review of all legal options[1].
Jan 16, 2026 – Secretary of State Shirley Weber stresses the protection of Californians’ data privacy and the duty to uphold democracy, asserting that the DOJ’s actions undermine the rule of law and voting rights[1].
Jan 17, 2026 – Judge David O. Carter dismisses the DOJ’s request for sensitive voter data, ruling the demand violates federal privacy laws and that any leave‑to‑amend would be futile[1].
Jan 17, 2026 – The Justice Department retains the option to appeal both the redistricting and voter‑data rulings, keeping the disputes alive and potentially shaping future election‑data and redistricting jurisprudence[1].
2026 (Nov) – The 2026 midterm elections approach, with heightened scrutiny of redistricting maps and voter‑data practices following the California court decisions and ongoing DOJ appeals[2].