The California Supreme Court on Aug. 21 denied an emergency petition filed by four Republican legislators seeking to block Gov. Gavin Newsom’s mid-decade congressional redistricting plan. In a brief, two-sentence order in Strickland v. Weber (No. S292490), the justices said the challengers had not met their burden for relief, clearing the way for Democratic lawmakers to move ahead before an Aug. 22 legislative deadline. The Legislature’s three “gut-and-amend” bills would place a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 4 statewide special ballot, asking voters to let lawmakers override the state’s independent citizens’ redistricting commission and adopt new maps projected to give Democrats up to five additional U.S. House seats through 2030. Republicans argued the maneuver violates a 30-day public-notice rule, but the supermajority can waive that requirement and is expected to approve the package this week. Newsom and legislative leaders portray the effort as a direct response to Texas, where Republican officials—encouraged by President Donald Trump—are advancing their own mid-cycle map designed to secure a five-seat gain for the GOP in 2026. Unlike the Texas measure, California’s plan would take effect only if voters approve it in November. Surveys show Californians sharply divided. A Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll released Aug. 17 found 48% of registered voters—and 55% of likely voters—supporting the temporary gerrymander, with 32% and 34% opposed, respectively. A separate UC Berkeley survey reported that 63% say gerrymandering is “never acceptable,” yet only 38% insisted the state keep its independent system if Texas presses ahead, while 35% favored matching the Republican move. The Republican plaintiffs vowed to continue their legal fight and campaign against the ballot measure. If voters endorse the proposal, the revised districts could be in force for candidate filing early in 2026, setting up a high-stakes map duel that may influence which party controls the U.S. House in the next Congress.