Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing the Trump administration’s attempt to defy the intent of a new state law banning privately run prisons and detention centers.

On Oct. 11, when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 32, liberal activists rejoiced. Private prisons are considered far more likely to be inhumane and generally use non-union workers. Private detention centers holding unauthorized immigrants are seen as a symbol of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that has become a target for the left since President Donald Trump’s election.

But while the law takes effect Jan. 1, it allows existing contracts to be honored. Five days after Newsom’s signing of AB32, ICE put out a solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website for contractors to run detention centers in the general areas of Northern California, Los Angeles and San Diego that had a total of 5,000 beds.

A month later, California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris and 19 fellow Democrats in the Golden State’s House of Representatives delegation are crying foul. They say ICE is flouting normal procedures in an attempt to ensure three existing facilities keep operating.

“Given the timing and terms of this solicitation – particularly in light of ICE’s history of suspect contract activities and insufficient oversight – we are understandably concerned that the solicitation is intended to favor incumbent contractors,” the 21 Democrats wrote in a letter to several federal agencies. “If so, these efforts would be in direct contradiction with the spirit of full and open competition required by federal procurement law.”

The solicitation asked for interested parties to respond within two weeks instead of the usual 30 days. It also specified that bidders had to have “turnkey ready” facilities with specific ranges of available beds. The contracts are for five years, with the option for two five-year extensions.

Democrats say bidding process is rigged

Democrats said this ensured that the only applicants would be the three companies that are already running federal immigration detention centers in California: GEO Group, which has centers in Adelanto in the Inland Empire and Bakersfield; CoreCivic, which runs a center in San Diego; and the Management and Training Corp., which has one in Calexico in Imperial County, east of San Diego.

ICE signed a $62 million contract with GEO for the Adelanto facility in March in which GEO was the only bidder. Democrats didn’t object to the contract at the time but now say it also was awarded in a way that violated the spirit of federal procurement laws by essentially ensuring only one company had a chance to win.

But an ICE official told the Palm Springs Desert Sun that the agency “remains compliant with federal contract and acquisitions regulations, as we advertise opportunity notices and subsequently implement the decision process.”

AB32’s author – Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland – blasted ICE in comments to the Desert Sun, saying the agency was attempting to “circumvent the will of the people of California.”

ICE’s parent agency – the Department of Homeland Security – has a history of claiming more flexibility under federal rules than its critics say it has. The same goes for the Trump administration, most notably in its use of $6.1 billion in defense funding to build sections of a border wall without congressional authorization.

In their letter to DHS and other agencies, the California Democratic lawmakers asked for information on how ICE crafted its solicitation for detention center bids.

Their chances of getting a quick response are unclear. ICE has long faced criticism over its handling of public record requests, which it is supposed to respond to in 20 days or less. The agency was sued earlier this month by the Project on Government Oversight for allegedly withholding information over how it used facial recognition and other technology in surveillance and data collection programs.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court hearing where the justices’ conservative majority appeared prepared to accept the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census form has triggered sharp criticism from California Democrats. If the question leads to millions of unauthorized immigrants not filling out forms, as the Census Bureau expects, that would lead to a significantly lower population count in the Golden State, which has the most such immigrants.

This has led to analyses predicting that California could lose one or two of its 53 House seats and, over the long term, billions of dollars in several categories of federal aid. These are divvied up based on census reports of total population. A Legislative Analyst’s Office study released in December detailed how in 1990, California had a census undercount with a similar effect.

But what has received less attention is the potential of the citizenship question to reduce the number of safe Democratic seats and to increase the number of swing seats in the House and state Legislature. Because House, Assembly and Senate seats are apportioned based on total population data from the 2010 census, turnout of voters — who have to be U.S. citizens — is often much smaller in rural agricultural areas which have a higher proportion of unauthorized immigrants, as well as in poor areas of Southern California.

Democrats much more likely to win low-turnout races

According to the official state results from November’s election, excluding races in which both candidates were from the same party, there were 21 House seats that Democrats won with fewer than 150,000 votes and only three such seats where Republicans won. In the 21st House district, Rep. T.J. Cox, D-Fresno, won with only 57,239 votes.

State Senate districts have on average about 25 percent greater total population than House districts. In November’s election, again excluding races in which both candidates were from the same party, of the 20 seats up for grabs, six were won by Democrats with fewer than 180,000 votes versus only one won by a Republican. In the 14th state Senate district, Melissa Hurtado, D-Sanger, won with just 80,942 votes.

State Assembly districts have on average half the population of state Senate districts. In November’s election, again excluding races in which both candidates were from the same party, of the 80 seats up for grabs, 22 were won by Democrats with fewer than 90,000 votes versus six won by Republicans. In the 32nd Assembly district, Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, won with just 39,328 votes.

With Democrats having overwhelming numerical advantages in California’s House, Senate and Assembly seats, too much can be read into statistics showing they are far more likely to win low-turnout races. Democratic candidates in affluent communities in the Bay Area, Silicon Valley and Southern California often won high-turnout races.

But the extremely low turnout districts concentrated in the Central Valley and Los Angeles County all elected Democrats. These districts are likely to change considerably after the reapportionment following the 2020 census, if the citizenship question is asked and has the effect of reducing the number of state residents who fill out census forms.

The Supreme Court is expected to release its decision in the census case in late June.