On November 6, some registered voters in California have received mail-in ballots for Proposition 50, which is about the redrawing of Congressional districts for the years 2026-2030 by the State Legislature.
This proposal, pushed by Governor Newsom and many Democratic state legislators, has sparked widespread attention. The redistricting of electoral districts is crucial, and who does the redistricting is even more important as it determines who controls power and the future of California.
The Secretary of State’s office has released the newly redrawn district maps by the State Legislature, but the maps are in black and white, making it difficult to differentiate. A color-coded map (not accurate district boundaries) based on the 2024 voter turnout provides a clearer picture. The new districts could potentially increase the Democratic Party’s hold from 52 to 48 out of the Congressional seats. White areas in the map represent Democratic-leaning districts, red areas are Republican-leaning, and pink and light blue areas are leaning towards either party.
After the redrawing, Congressman Kevin Kiley’s district shifted from light pink to deep blue, giving Democrats a 10.2% advantage. Kiley stated on social media that a “Yes” vote on Proposition 50 supports unfair district redistricting, while a “No” vote opposes unfair district redrawing.
In 2008 and 2010, California voters passed three ballot propositions that transferred redistricting power to the independent “California Citizens Redistricting Commission,” composed of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 non-partisan members.
Since 2008, following each decennial census, the commission has been responsible for redrawing the Congressional, State Legislative, and local government district lines. The current districts were drawn in 2021 and are supposed to be reevaluated following the 2030 census.
Governor Newsom stated that, seeing Texas redistricting, California Democrats cannot stand idly by. He emphasized the importance of standing firm in this government’s determination so that the 2028 elections might not be jeopardized. Therefore, “we must fight fire with fire.”
Critics have raised concerns about the lack of democracy in the closed-door drawing of the new district map in Sacramento. They argue that the proposition allows lawmakers, mostly Democrats who hold a significant majority in both state houses, to dictate district boundaries without public input, resulting in a biased advantage towards the Democratic Party.
37 out of 58 county sheriffs in California have voiced opposition to Proposition 50. They argued that it abolishes the independent “California Citizens Redistricting Commission,” allowing district lines to be drawn for partisan advantage. Amid California’s budget deficit, special elections, projected to cost taxpayers around $282 million as a result of this proposition, might arise, despite the 68.4% voter approval in 2024 for Proposition 36, which focused on enhancing penalties for theft, robbery, and drug crimes with no financial backing.
Several media outlets have publicly opposed Proposition 50, including the Daily Breeze, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Los Angeles Star-New, The San Bernardino Sun, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and Press-Enterprise.
The Orange County Register commented, labeling it as an “attack on California democracy,” emphasizing the importance of voters choosing their politicians rather than the other way around, as proposed in Proposition 50.
Despite existing fair districts, California’s representation is already heavily skewed towards the Democratic Party. Although 38.3% of Californian voters backed the Trump-Pence ticket in the 2024 election, the state currently only has 9 Republican congress members out of 52, accounting for 17%—a disparity attributed to congressional redistricting. Proposition 50 is criticized for distorting congressional representation and potentially compromising fair elections in the future.
Editorials argue that supporters of Proposition 50 suggest that voters should have the final say, aligning with Texas’ strategy. However, they question if two wrongs make a right, and whether fostering political corruption can combat it. They urge voters to oppose the proposition if they value fair elections, political competition, and genuine representation.
Governor Newsom, along with many Democratic state legislators, supports Proposition 50. Their Vote Measures Committee, teacher unions, influential labor organizations, and out-of-state contributions have amassed over $60 million in donations, totaling over $95.95 million.
Various local governments, including the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Mateo County, and Los Angeles City Council, have conveyed their support for Proposition 50. Notable donations include $10 million from George Soros’ Foundation for Policy Reform, $2.5 million from San Francisco venture capitalist Michael Moritz, $2 million from Netflix Chairman Reed Hastings, and $500,000 each from former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham.
Twenty individuals have announced their intention to run for California Governor in 2026, with CBS interviewing several candidates. Former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra (Democratic) stated: “This is to prevent interference from Trump in Congress. California pays the most in taxes but receives reduced federal funding.”
Former Congresswoman Katie Porter (Democratic) expressed her support for the Governor’s plan, stating it provides a chance to counter Texas, enhance voters’ choices, and secure five new Democratic seats. When pressed for further details, Porter refrained from answering, claiming she wouldn’t address other questions.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco (Republican) criticized the proposition, likening it to justifying illegality and unethical behavior under the guise of serving voter interests, portraying the Governor’s motives as self-serving.
Political commentator Steve Hilton (Republican) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 50, questioning the propriety of lawmakers drawing their own district maps. He emphasized rising oil prices and the cost of living in California, advocating for spending the projected $282 million on lowering oil prices or housing expenses instead of conducting the special election.