[CatoRenasci]

You're clearly right here: the California courts, including the liberal California Supremes, have tossed every challenge to this election. Unlike some of the states in the South, where the feds had jurisdiction over elections because of past de jure segregation and discrimination, California has not such history, and no such prior fedederal claim of jurisdiction.

The troubling precedent, however, in the back of my mind is Baker v Carr, in which states' bicameral legislatures on the model of the US - ie reps by population and senators by county -- bit the dust- Frankfurter's dissent pointed out, correctly IMHO, that in Colegrove (which Baker overturned) several justices were clear that there was no jurisdiction for the feds to intervene in the drawing of state districts, etc.

[CatoRenasci]

Technically, of course, the one-man, one-vote decision was Reynolds v. Sims, but I've always seen Baker v. Carr as the one that really opened the door to Reynolds by overruling Colegrove.