(Alexandria, VA) March 30, 2026 — Amended complaints were filed in consolidated cases Noyes v. Newsom and Tangipa v. Newsom, challenging the constitutionality of California’s redistricting map adopted through Proposition 50 (2:25-cv-11480 and 2:25-cv-10616).
In Noyes, represented by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), plaintiffs claim the redistricting map violates the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
“California’s new congressional map was drawn with illegal racial intent and illegal racial considerations violating the 15th Amendment,” said PILF President J. Christian Adams. “In fact, Paul Mitchell, the man who drew the new congressional map, admitted in interviews to drawing district lines with intentional racial goals.”
The 15th Amendment states, “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 forbids enforcing election proceedings with a racial intent.
Adams continued, “The new map deliberately kept California’s 16 Hispanic majority districts by narrowing the margin of Hispanic population in all but one district and keeping Hispanic population in a deliberately tight range of 52 to 55 percent in those districts.”
The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is the nation’s only public interest law firm dedicated wholly to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.
###