GOP

C. Montgomery Johnson, 81, a veteran political strategist and former Washington state Republican Party chairman, died of complications from a stroke and diabetes May 21 in Olympia, Wash.

Widely known as “Gummie,” Johnson directed Daniel J. Evans’ successful 1964 gubernatorial campaign.

He was the first full-time chairman of the state Republican Central Committee from 1964 to 1971, during which he helped purge members of the John Birch Society from the state party.

During that time, Johnson also served as an executive member of the Republican National Committee.

In partnership with his third wife, Democratic lobbyist Ann Quantock, he founded the political consulting firm C. Montgomery Johnson Associates.

The cigar-smoking Johnson, who was known for being opinionated, profane and progressive, campaigned for public education, the environment, Native Americans, libraries and hospitals. As a champion of equal rights for women, Johnson advised the campaign that elected the state’s first female governor, conservative Democrat Dixy Lee Ray, in 1976.

The Seattle native received a master’s degree in forestry from the University of Washington in 1950, and later worked as a forest ranger before becoming public relations director for Weyerhaeuser, a forest products company.

Dec. 19 (UPI) — Wisconsin’s Republican leaders will begin impeachment proceedings against Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan if she does not resign after her felony obstruction conviction.

State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, both of whom are Republicans, issued the ultimatum in a joint statement, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Friday.

“Judge Hannah Dugan, while wearing judicial robes of the state of Wisconsin, attempted to impede the lawful work of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents,” Vos and August said.

“The last time a Wisconsin judge was impeached was in 1853,” they said. “If Judge Dugan does not resign from her office immediately, the Assembly will begin impeachment proceedings.”

A jury of 12 on Thursday found Dugan guilty of obstructing federal agents as they attempted to arrest a man who was scheduled to appear on an unrelated matter in her courtroom in April.

The jury found her guilty of one count of obstruction, which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The jury acquitted her on one count of concealment.

Dugan’s legal team said they will appeal her felony conviction.

Vos cited the Wisconsin Constitution’s Article XII, Section 3(2), which says no individual who has been convicted of a felony is eligible to serve in “any office of trust” in the state, unless that person is pardoned according to WISN.

Federal prosecutors tried Dugan in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee after she interfered with ICE agents’ efforts to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz for illegally being in the United States on April 18.

Court records show Dugan engaged the ICE agents in the court’s hallway after she helped Flores-Ruiz and his attorney use an entrance for jurors to exit the courthouse.

ICE agents arrested Flores-Ruiz after chasing him on foot.

A trio of federal judges questioned attorneys for Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Republican Party on Wednesday in a legal case that will decide the fate of California’s new voter-approved congressional districts for the 2026 midterm elections.

Attorneys for the California Republican Party and the Trump administration’s Department of Justice during the hearing recapped the argument they made in their legal complaint, accusing Democratic legislators and redistricting experts of racial gerrymandering that illegally favored Latinos.

The state’s legal representatives, meanwhile, argued their primary goal was not racial but political — they worked to weaken Republicans’ voting power in California to offset similar gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states.

But Wednesday was the first time the public got to hear the three federal judges of the Central District of California challenge those narratives as they weigh whether to grant the GOP’s request for a temporary injunction blocking the reconfigured congressional districts approved by voters in November under Proposition 50.

The GOP has repeatedly seized on public comments from Paul Mitchell, a redistricting expert for California’s Democratic-led Legislature who designed the Proposition 50 congressional districts, that “the No. 1 thing” he started thinking about was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles.”

On Wednesday, District Court Judge Josephine Staton suggested that GOP attorneys focused too much on the intent of Mitchell and Democratic legislators and not enough on the voters who ultimately approved Proposition 50.

“Why would we not be looking at their intent?” Staton asked Michael Columbo, an attorney for California Republicans. “If the relative intent is the voters, you have nothing.”

Nearly two-thirds of California voters approved the new Proposition 50 congressional district map in a Nov. 4 special election after Newsom pitched the idea as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering after President Trump pressed Texas to redraw maps to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority.

The stakes for California and the nation are high.

If the new map is used for the 2026 midterms, it could give California Democrats up to five additional U.S. House seats. That could allow them to push back against the gains Republicans make due to redistricting in staunchly GOP states and increase Democrats’ chance of seizing the House and shifting the balance of power in Congress.

A win for Democrats could also boost Newsom’s national clout and help him pitch himself as the nation’s strongest and most effective Trump critic as he enters his final year as California governor and weighs a White House bid.

During closing arguments Wednesday, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the race-based aspect of the redrawn districts started with the drafting of the Assembly bill that led to Proposition 50 being placed on the ballot.

Staton, however, seemed unconvinced.

“These maps have no effect,” she said, “until the voters give them effect.”

The GOP cannot challenge the map on grounds of political gerrymandering: The Supreme Court decided in 2019 that such complaints have no path in federal court. That leaves them focusing on race.

But proving that race predominated over partisanship is a challenge, legal scholars say, and paying attention to race is not, in itself, prohibited under current law. To prove that race was the key motivation, plaintiffs have to show there is another way for map makers to achieve their desired political result without a racial impact.

During the hearing, Staton stressed that the burden was on the challengers of Proposition 50 to prove racial intent.

To that end, the GOP brought to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said the new 13th Congressional District in the San Joaquin Valley had an “appendage” that snaked northward into Stockton. Such contorted offshoots, he said, are “usually indicative of racial gerrymandering.” Trende produced an alternative map of the district that he said retained Democratic representation without being driven by race.

But Staton questioned whether Trende’s map was substantially different from Mitchell’s, noting they both seemed to fall within a similar range of Latino representation.

U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu lambasted Columbo over what he called the “strawman” attempt to pick out one district, the 13th Congressional District, to make the case that there was a race-conscious effort in the attempt to flip five seats in the Democrats’ favor.

Jennifer Rosenberg, an attorney for the state, also argued that Trende’s analysis was too narrow.

“Dr. Trende failed to conduct a district by district analysis,” Rosenberg said. “And as we can see, he only addressed two tiny portions of District 13 and really only focused on one of the subparts.”

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Lee questioned Rosenberg on how much she believed Mitchell’s public statements about wanting to create a Latino district in Los Angeles influenced his redrawing.

“He was talking to interested groups,” Rosenberg said. “He did not communicate that intent to legislators.”

However, Lee said that Mitchell’s closeness to Democratic interest groups was an important factor. Mitchell “delivered on” the “wants” of the Latino interest groups he interacted with, Lee said, based on his public statements and lack of testimony.

Lee also took issue with Mitchell not testifying at the hearing and the dozens of times he invoked legislative privilege during a deposition ahead of the hearing.

Abha Khanna, who represented the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, argued there was no racial predominance in Mitchell’s statements.

She showed judges the text of Proposition 50, an official voter guide and statements from Newsom, arguing they were overt declarations of partisan intent. She also pointed out instances in which Republican plaintiffs discussed Proposition 50 in exclusively partisan terms.

If the federal judges grant a preliminary injunction, California would be temporarily blocked from using the newly drawn map in the 2026 election. Attorneys for the state would probably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just two weeks ago, the nation’s highest court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its newly drawn congressional districts — which also faced complaints of racial gerrymandering — after a federal court blocked the Texas map, finding racial considerations probably made it unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated it viewed the Texas redistricting as motivated primarily by partisan politics. In its ruling, it explicitly drew a connection between Texas and California, noting that several states, including California, have redrawn their congressional map “in ways that are predicted to favor the State’s dominant political party.”

Republicans and Democrats squared off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California’s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state’s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders — from GOP Assembly members to Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell — have been called to testify in a Los Angeles federal courtroom over the next few days.

The GOP wants the three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.

An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats admitted the new map would weaken Republicans’ voting power in California, but argued it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore national political balance.

Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They argue California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.

On Monday, attorneys for the GOP began by homing in on the new map’s Congressional District 13, which currently encompasses Merced, Stanislaus, and parts of San Joaquin and Fresno counties, along with parts of Stockton.

When Mitchell drew up the map, they argued, he over-represented Latino voters as a “predominant consideration” over political leanings.

They called to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said he observed an “appendage” in the new District 13, which extended partially into the San Joaquin Valley and put a crack in the new rendition of District 9.

“From my experience [appendages] are usually indicative of racial gerrymandering,” Trende said. “When the choice came between politics and race, it was race that won out.”

Republicans face an uphill struggle in blocking the new map before the 2026 midterms. The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map — a move that Newsom’s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California’s map.

“In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’s, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations likely made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later the Supreme Court granted Texas’ request to pause that ruling, signaling they view the Texas case, and this one in California, as part of a national politically-motivated redistricting battle.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California),” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued, “was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

The fact that the Supreme Court order and Alito’s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“It’s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map — that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,” Hasen said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, there’s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.”

Many legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas case means California will likely keep its new map.

“It was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it’s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

Hours after Californians voted in favor of Prop. 50 on Nov. 4, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Prop. 50 for California’s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others.

The Department of Justice also filed a complaint in the case, arguing the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines “in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell’s attorneys argued he had legislative privilege.

Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the “number one thing” he started thinking about” was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles” and the “first thing” he and his team did was “reverse” the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.

Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.

“What [Mitchell] said was, essentially, ‘I paid attention to race,’” Levitt said. “But there’s nothing under existing law that’s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.”

Other legal experts argue that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Prop. 50.

“Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,” said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. “So it’s really the voters’ intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.”

WASHINGTON — Republican critics of affirmative action hailed Monday’s Supreme Court decision as a mandate for even more sweeping action by Congress and vowed to press home their attack on federal programs of racial preference.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole called the ruling–that preferential treatment based on race is almost always unconstitutional–”one more reason for the federal government to get out of the race-preference business” and summoned fellow lawmakers “to follow the court’s lead and put the federal government’s own house in order.”

Dole, once a supporter of affirmative action, has called for hearings on the subject in the Senate, and has said he may sponsor legislation to rewrite many of the programs. He was joined in his praise of the court ruling by fellow presidential contender Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), who said Monday’s decision “greatly strengthens the prospects” that he would seek to amend all funding bills passing through Congress this year to bar the use of federal dollars for “quotas and set-asides.”

The court’s dramatic ruling, meantime, thrust President Clinton and other Democrats into a new bind both legally and politically. Administration officials acknowledged it has disrupted a review of the federal government’s 180-odd affirmative action programs now under way. Clinton had sought the review to help deflect criticism both from the GOP and conservative forces within his own party.

Legally, Clinton now can hope to save parts of affirmative action only if he can come up with new rationales that are defensible under the narrow terms outlined by the Supreme Court on Monday. The court said affirmative action programs can be upheld as a means to correct specific, provable cases of discrimination, but not to correct suspected discrimination by a society over time.

That, in turn, underscores Clinton’s political challenge in dealing with the charged issues of race and gender. The President must either acquiesce in cutbacks to affirmative action programs, thereby risking alienation of minority voters who are crucial to his party’s base, or actively defend the programs and risk offending large numbers of white voters.

“This has really intensified the question of which programs should live and which should die,” said one Senate Democratic aide. “And that really raises the heat on what Clinton has been doing.”

The White House has said it expects to complete its review of affirmative action by the end of this month. Before the court announced the rulings, officials familiar with the review have predicted that it would essentially affirm most principles of federal affirmative action, while calling for changes in the procurement “set aside” programs that have attracted so much criticism.

Administration aides were in general agreement that the decision now would considerably delay the results of the review, which were to be released in a major thematic speech.

“If we’re not back to square one, we’ve at least moved back some distance,” said one Administration official.

But with the White House still contemplating its next move on the issue, House Republicans are set to redraft completely the controversial programs that were launched in the early 1960s to compensate women and minorities for past discrimination in higher education and the job market.

Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), a one-time Democrat who now chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s constitution subcommittee, is set later this month to unveil legislation that would forbid the federal government to use gender or race preferences in any federal program, and dismantle many of the programs that have come to be central to affirmative action.

The House bill would effectively repeal one of the central features of 160 government programs that use racial and gender preferences in hiring and promoting federal workers, granting federal contracts and awarding benefits under federal programs. It would call a virtual halt to federal programs that “set aside” slots and pools of funding for businesses owned by minorities and women, and would require substantial changes in other programs.

On Monday, Canady said the court’s decision “gives impetus” to Republicans’ political efforts to roll back many such programs, by making clear the court’s intent to “return to a focus on individual rights” over groups’ rights.

But the complex ruling, he added, also makes it vital for Congress to weigh in quickly with its own views on affirmative action. “You’ll now see all kinds of challenges and litigation moving through district appeals courts, all the way to Supreme Court,” Canady said.

But Democratic proponents of affirmative action on Monday said that the court’s ruling had increased pressure on the White House to act, and to do so quickly, before Congressional Republicans seize the initiative.

“It is perhaps even more important that the President take time to delineate a vision and a course of action . . . as only the President can do,” said Rep. Kweisi Mfume, (D-Md.) former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mfume, focusing on one of the majority opinion’s few comments that could be construed as justifying existing programs, lauded the court for acknowledging that “race discrimination is real and government has a role in eradicating it.”

“For those Republicans who have some notion that they ought to do away with all set-asides in the government because there’s no need for them, the court is saying, that is not correct, there is still,” he said.

Mfume’s positive tone was echoed by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who said she was “somewhat disappointed . . . but certainly not discouraged” by the stringent standards called for by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling.

“We may have to do a lot more work and it’s going to be a little confused,” said Waters. But she asserted the new standards applied by the Supreme Court would by no means spell an end to existing affirmative action programs at the federal level.

“This ruling suggests that the strict scrutiny standards would have to be met, and that there is overwhelming and compelling reasons out there to meet them. It doesn’t take a Harvard scholar to do that. The group certainly has been discriminated against.”

The author of major affirmative action laws in California, Waters stated that with a simple technical change, California statutes allowing set-asides for women- and minority-owned contractors would be able to meet the standards set out by the Supreme Court Monday.

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this story.