Governor Gavin Newsom and the California state legislature introduced Proposition 50, known as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” which appeared on a special election ballot on Nov. 4.
The measure would temporarily change how California’s congressional districts are drawn, allowing the state legislature to create new maps that would be used for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. After the next U.S. Census in 2030, control would return to the state’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.
Political Science Professor James Samstad explains that the debate over Proposition 50 highlights a larger tension between principle and strategy for Democrats.
“If you’re in this situation where, in principle, you think that gerrymandering is unfair, but you also want Democrats not to be shut out by an unfair system, that is the tension,” he said.
He noted that some Democrats feel that they are “unilaterally disarming” by following fair redistricting rules while other states do not, adding, “In an ideal world, we would play fair, but if the other side is not playing fair, rather than lose, we’ll play unfair too.”
Proposition 50 supporters, including Governor Newsom, Senator Alex Padilla and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, emphasize that the change would only be temporary, with the CRC resuming control after 2030. They view the measure as a defensive move rather than a politically driven one.
“Vote ‘Yes’ on 50 for democracy in all 50 states,” reads the official campaign slogan, highlighting what they call an effort to protect fair elections and ensure California’s voice remains strong in Washington, DC.
Opponents argue that Proposition 50 violates California’s long-standing commitment to independent and transparent redistricting. They claim that allowing lawmakers to draw their own districts removes key protections that prevent gerrymandering and protect local communities.
State Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones has been one of the most outspoken critics. On social media, he accused the governor and state Democrats of “rigging the next election in violation of the California Constitution,” calling the proposition “a power grab by politicians.”
Samstad agrees that Democrats may face consequences for going against redistricting reform principles.
“If Democrats are saying we are the principled party that wants fair elections, now you have less credibility because you’re gerrymandering and creating these unfair districts,” he said.
He added that the move could “make it harder to take the position that we’re trying to make sure everybody has fair elections.”
The measure also raises questions about its impact on national elections.
“If they don’t gerrymander, that may mean that the Republicans permanently have a majority in the House, even if Democrats are getting the most votes nationally,” Samstad said, describing the challenge for Democratic lawmakers.
He also warned that gerrymandering in any form is “bad for democracy,” because it results in “people voting in election after election in which it’s a predetermined outcome of who’s going to win that particular district.”
Proposition 50 was, and continues to be, one of the most closely followed measures in California. The outcome of the vote has the potential to influence how the state, and possibly the nation, approaches redistricting in the future.
