In a joint effort, after 37 sheriffs from 58 counties in California publicly opposed Proposition 50, 30 district attorneys from various counties have also joined forces to resist it. They believe that this proposition will dismantle the state’s independent redistricting system and allow for the unfair partitioning of districts based on party lines to return to California.
Voters who vote “Yes” will allow the state legislature to redraw districts between 2026 and 2030, removing the power of the “California Citizens Redistricting Commission” to draw districts and the existing district maps.
On the other hand, those who vote “No” oppose amending state law to maintain the district maps revised by the “California Citizens Redistricting Commission” in 2021 until the next census in 2030 before redrawing.
In a joint letter released on October 9th, the district attorneys stated that Proposition 50 “attempts to dissolve the California Citizens Redistricting Commission approved by voters and revive the practice of unfair districting based on party lines, a flawed process that was rejected by Californians through Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010.”
The letter warned that Proposition 50 “prioritizes the power of politicians over reform measures approved by voters that could improve community representation, thus undermining democracy.”
The prosecutors emphasized that the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, approved by voters, “has initiated certain redistricting efforts after the last two censuses,” while Proposition 50 “permits the state legislature to secretly draw new congressional district maps before the next census—separating communities and silencing voters.”
Critics pointed out the high cost of the special election brought by Proposition 50, stating that “the special election costs for Proposition 50 are as high as $300 million—funds that could have been used to support the drug treatment initiatives in Proposition 36, approved by nearly 70% of Californians to address crime and addiction issues,” but both the Governor and Democratic state legislators opposed the measure—a proposal to strengthen punishment for theft, robbery, drug offenses, and mandated rehabilitation.
Additionally, State officials claimed to lack sufficient funding to support Proposition 36 but “easily allocated hundreds of millions for this unnecessary election, highlighting misplaced priorities.”
The Governor described Proposition 50 as “fighting fire with fire”; however, local prosecutors responded in the letter stating that partisan gerrymandering “is fundamentally wrong, no matter who implements it or where it occurs—two wrongs do not make a right,” and that Proposition 50 aims at “dismantling a bipartisan redistricting commission approved by voters twice.”
The California Democratic Party stated on its website that the referendum is to “safeguard democracy” and ensure that the “next year’s mid-term elections are conducted in a fair competitive environment, preventing Republicans from gaining unfair advantages.” However, this refers to avoiding Republican dominance in Congress, as the new state legislative districts would give the Democratic Party an advantage in 48 out of California’s 52 congressional seats, making the Republican Party more marginalized.
The prosecutors also condemned the prevalent phenomenon in political discourse: “In an era where morality and integrity are eroded, political assassination is forgiven, and violent rhetoric against opponents and their families is simply dismissed as ‘mistakes.’ We must firmly say ‘no.'”
“The Proposition 50 threatens fair representation and wastes resources trying to overturn voter-approved reforms, altering California’s congressional delegation solely for the benefit of a political party rather than upholding people’s will,” the prosecutors stated in the letter, urging Californians to reject Proposition 50 to safeguard the state’s democratic process.
With 18 days left until November 4th, mail-in ballots have been sent to registered voters, but millions of ballots were found to have errors. Secretary of State Shirley Weber admitted that the “Voter Information Guide” mistakenly labeled the proposed new congressional District 27 as District 22. Furthermore, the newly redrawn district maps are also inaccurate.
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig believes that Proposition 50 threatens the fairness of California’s electoral process: “The establishment of an independent districting commission is to ensure fairness, and Proposition 50 would undermine this process for political gain.”
San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow stated: “If we give up on our commitment to fair districting, it will trigger a bidding war where both parties will manipulate districting for their own interests.”
In the newly redrawn state legislative districts, several incumbent Republican congressional members’ districts have undergone significant changes, including Doug LaMalfa of District 1, David Valadao of District 2, Kevin Kiley of District 3, Ken Calvert of District 41, and Darrell Issa, where districts with Republican majority voters have now become Democratic majority.
Prosecutors from populous counties in Southern California, including Nathan Hochman of Los Angeles County, Summer Stephan of San Diego County, Michael A. Hestrin of Riverside County, and Jason Anderson of San Bernardino County, have also participated in the joint protest.