Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

2025 California Proposition 50

Proposed amendment to the California Constitution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2025 California Proposition 50
Remove ads

California Proposition 50, also known as the Election Rigging Response Act,[2] is a constitutional amendment that amends California's Constitution, appearing on the special election ballot in California on November 4, 2025. The proposition was put on the ballot by the Democratic-controlled California State Legislature and it would authorize a mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts, replacing the ones drawn by the bipartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Quick facts Reporting, Results ...

The map defined in Proposition 50 is a Democratic gerrymander intended to offset the gerrymander by Texas Republicans. It redraws several congressional districts to incorporate larger shares of urban and suburban Democratic voters, increasing Democratic registration advantages in competitive districts and converting several Republican-leaning seats into Democratic-leaning ones.[3]

The proposition was approved by Californian voters.[4] The referendum significantly outperformed Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential election in California. It was supported in 85% Hispanic Imperial County, which had flipped to Donald Trump in 2024. The new districts will be used for the 2026 United States House of Representatives elections through the 2030 elections.[5] Following the 2030 census, congressional redistricting authority will return to the independent commission under the normal decennial process.

Remove ads

Background

Summarize
Perspective
See also: 2025 Texas redistricting

In June 2025, Republican lawmakers in Texas first proposed gerrymandering the state's congressional district lines to favor Republicans.[6] In July, Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, called a special session of the Texas Legislature to discuss redistricting.[7] Texas Democrats in the state House of Representatives fled the state in an effort to break quorum and stall the redistricting effort.[8]

Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, first proposed that California could gerrymander its own congressional district maps to favor Democrats in an effort to offset potential gains from Texas's gerrymandering.[9] The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is an independent bipartisan body that currently handles redistricting in the state. The commission was first established in 2008 by Proposition 11 with a mandate for drawing districts for the State Legislature and the Board of Equalization.

With the passage of Proposition 20, the commission's power was expanded in 2010 to also draw congressional districts. Newsom proposed that a special election be called to temporarily pause the commission and return redistricting power to the California Legislature until the end of the decade. Because both Propositions 11 and 20 were voter-approved amendments to the state constitution, any such changes to the redistricting power would also require a voter-approved constitutional amendment.[10]

On August 11, 2025, Newsom sent a letter to Donald Trump, stating that California would pause any mid-decade redistricting effort if other states called off their efforts.[11] Two days later, Newsom announced that the deadline had passed and he would move forward with his own redistricting effort.[12]

Remove ads

Proposed map

Summarize
Perspective
Thumb
Map of California's congressional districts as set by the California redistricting commission (effective 2023–2032 if Proposition 50 does not pass)
Interactive map version
Thumb
Proposed map for California Proposition 50 redistricting
Quick facts External image ...

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell,[13] and formally submitted to the legislature by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[14] Proponents of the maps argued that the map was more compact than the previous map, with fewer city and county splits, and with the majority of districts changed by less than 10%,[14] although certain cities, such as Lodi, would be newly split.[15] Neutral observers, however, have described the maps as an "aggressive Democratic gerrymander" that would more than double the bias in the current map, as a result of simultaneously cracking Republican districts, while unpacking extremely Democratic districts through absorbing more Republican areas.[16]

It targets five seats currently held by Republicans:[17][18][19]

The proposed map is also expected to decrease the competitiveness of several swing districts held by Democrats:[18]

As a result of cracking Republican votes, many districts would become less Democratic-leaning. In six districts, the Democratic voter registration advantage would decrease by a margin of more than 10 percentage points:[18]

However, all six districts would still favor the Democrats.

The proposed map is expected to help one Republican who represents a swing district: Young Kim (CA-40). The district would lose many cities in Orange County, while gaining many Republican-leaning areas of Riverside County from the current 41st and 48th districts. As a result, the Republican advantage will increase by 9.7 percentage points, effectively being repurposed into a Republican pack.[18]

In 23 districts (out of 52), the change would be 2 percentage points or less.[18]

In terms of the impact of the new maps on protected groups under the federal Voting Rights Act, a study from Caltech and Cal Poly Pomona found that the number of Latino majority districts would stay the same and two additional districts where Latinos make up 30-50% of the citizen voting age population would be added.[20][21] The UCLA Asian American Studies Center found that the number of Asian American/Pacific Islander plurality districts would increase from three to five.[22]

Remove ads

Legislative history

Summarize
Perspective

Three actions were necessary to place Proposition 50 on the ballot:[23][24]

  1. Pass Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 which is the amendment submitted for approval to California voters to redistrict the state
  2. Pass Senate Bill 280 to call the election, assign the proposition number, and prohibit any candidate from using the title "incumbent" in the June 2026 congressional election should the measure pass
  3. Pass Assembly Bill 604 to assign each census block within the counties to a congressional district.

SB 280 was introduced on August 18,[a] and a legislative vote occurred in both chambers on August 21. A two-thirds supermajority was needed to place the measure on the ballot.[27][28] The California State Assembly surpassed the 54 votes needed for a supermajority by passing the bill on a 57 to 20 vote.[b] Hours later, the California State Senate surpassed the 27 votes needed for a supermajority by approving the bill on a 30 to 8 vote.[30][c] Governor Newsom signed it into law later in the day.[31] ACA 8 also passed by that same vote tally, although as a legislative constitutional amendment it did not need the governor's signature.[32] ACA 8 was chaptered by the Secretary of State on August 21, 2025, at Resolution Chapter 156, Statues of 2025.[32] AB 604, which set the boundaries of the districts, passed 56 to 20 in the Assembly and 30 to 9 in the Senate.[33][d][e]

Republican response

Summarize
Perspective

Legislation

Republicans have proposed legislation as well as their own proposition in response to the placement of Proposition 50 on a special election ballot.

California State Assembly minority leader James Gallagher, along with a few other Republican cosponsors, introduced a joint resolution to split California into two states.[36][37]

Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio drafted a proposition to target state lawmakers who supported the proposition. Titled "Penalize Politicians Who Manipulate Their Own Districts Initiative,"[38] DeMaio's proposal would bar any state lawmaker who voted in favor of Proposition 50 from running for office for ten years.[39] In October 2025, CA Secretary of State Shirley Weber confirmed receipt of DeMaio's proposition, allowing it to begin collecting voter signatures. DeMaio's proposal will require 874,641 signatures from California registered voters, before April 20, 2026, in order to appear as a proposition in the 2026 California elections.[39]

Pre-election litigation

Four California state legislators (state senators Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares and assembly members Tri Ta and Kate Sanchez) filed a lawsuit with the California Supreme Court asking the court to block the vote in the State Legislature on the ground that state law required a 30-day waiting period before voting on the bill. On August 20, the California Supreme Court rejected the motion by the four legislators, paving the way for a vote the following day.[40] On August 25, after the bill became law, the same four legislators sued again in the state Supreme Court. In their emergency lawsuit, the legislators claim that the proposition is a violation of citizens' rights to have the California redistricting commission draw congressional districts. The California Republican Party announced that it was backing the plaintiffs, who were represented by a law firm founded by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.[41] The California Supreme Court also rejected the second lawsuit.[42]

On August 25, the day that the four Republican state legislators filed their second lawsuit, Donald Trump announced that he will ask the United States Justice Department to sue in federal court to block Proposition 50. California's governor Gavin Newsom responded in a tweet, "BRING IT".[43]

On September 4, political advisor Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate in the 2026 CA gubernatorial election, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asking them to stop Proposition 50, arguing that the proposition did not account for changes in the state's population since the 2020 Census and would hence violate the "one-person, one vote". On September 25, Hilton asked for an injunction with the court, after Governor Newsom and CA Secretary of State Shirley Weber failed to respond to the suit within 21 days, as typically required by federal law. An official within the office of Governor Newsom told the Fresno ABC affiliate KFSN-TV that they did not respond because they were not properly served.[44] On October 3, Hilton's preliminary injunction was filed with the district court.[45] On October 24, Judge Kenly Kato denied the petition to enjoin the proposition, stating that the lawsuit could continue after the election if the proposition passes.[46]

On September 5, U.S. Representative Ronny Jackson (R-TX) sued both Newsom and Weber in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the legislation risked "diluting Plaintiff’s legislative power and the voice of Texas voters".[47] A petition for a temporary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed on October 23 by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk for inability to demonstrate a cognizable injury.[48][49] A second lawsuit filed by Jackson, which only differed from the prior suit with the addition of former California U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R) as a co-plaintiff, was dismissed by Kacsmaryk on October 31 on the same grounds.[50]

Remove ads

Election logistics

Summarize
Perspective
Thumb
A postcard with election information that was sent to voters in Sonoma County for the special election.

The initial estimated cost for the special election was $282 million, of which $251 million would be incurred by the counties to conduct the election and reimbursable by the state.[51]

Vote by mail ballots were sent out to all 23 million California voters, with the first ballots being returned on October 6. By October 24, 18% of the ballots mailed out (about 4 million) were already returned.[52] Although the California Republican Party was urging Republican voters to mail their ballots back as soon as possible, on October 26 Donald Trump urged voters not to mail their ballots back, but to vote in person instead.[53]

Voter information guide error

Thumb
Image of a postcard mailed by the California Secretary of State to voters who received a voter information guide with a typo

The initial version of the voter information guide contained a typographical error in the labeling of one of the congressional districts. Eight million copies of the voter guide had already been sent out before the error was discovered. Voters who had received the erroneous voter guide received a postcard with a correction. The rest of the voters received a revised version of the voter guide. Secretary of State Shirley Weber blamed the Legislative Analyst's Office for the error, and said that the office would bear the estimated $3 to $4 million in the additional costs incurred.[54]

Sacramento County return envelope issue

Thumb
A Proposition 50 mail-in-ballot sent to voters in Los Angeles County.

In mid-October, voters in Sacramento County reported that the return envelopes they received along with their mail-in ballots could reveal their marked choices through a small hole in the envelope if the ballot is folded such that the hole is lined up with the markings on the ballot. County election officials confirmed the reports and explained that the small holes had various purposes, chief among them to be able to see whether the return envelope contains the ballot. To avoid exposing the marked choices on the ballot, county election officials recommended that voters fold their ballot with the markings inside the fold.[55]

Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for the 2026 gubernatorial election who had previously filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of the special election, demanded the election be cancelled due to the flawed design of the envelopes in Sacramento County. Hilton cited the issue as "another example of the corruption and incompetence rigging California’s elections".[56]

Federal tensions

In response to a request by Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, the Trump administration announced on October 24 that the Department of Justice would deploy election monitors to polling sites in California. Rankin's request cited "reports of irregularities" which she feared would "undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election". California Secretary of State Shirley Weber criticized the move as voter intimidation "masquerading as oversight".[57][f]

Another dispute came up when Governor Newsom raised the possibility that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) might raid polling places as an intimidation tactic. ICE officials responded that they were "not planning operations targeting polling locations", but would not be deterred from going to a polling place if "a dangerous criminal alien" were to approach a polling center.[58]

Remove ads

Campaign

Summarize
Perspective

Support for the measure is expected to be highly partisan, with supporters of the measure likely being members of the Democratic Party, while those in opposition are expected to be members of the Republican Party.[59]

Support

The ballot measure was proposed by Governor Newsom, who has emerged as its most vocal champion.[60][3] Other prominent supporters include former President Barack Obama,[61] former Vice President Kamala Harris,[62] U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff,[63] and the California AFL-CIO.[64] Newsom, Padilla, and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi signed the ballot argument in favor.[65]

Within a month after the special election was called, Gavin Newsom's committee supporting the proposition raised $70 million, with $10 million coming from George Soros and his family.[66] Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared in an ad produced by the PAC, speaking in support of the proposition and telling Californians that it 'levels the playing field' and 'gives power back to the people'.[67] The Newsom-led ballot committee announced on October 28 that it has reached its fundraising goals and took the unusual step of stopping its fundraising activities. In the announcement, the committee noted that $38 million of the amount raised came from 1.2 million supporters.[68]

A couple of other committees also spent money promoting the proposition. One, by the House Majority PAC, a Super PAC of House Democrats has spent $10 million (as of Mid-October) and works closely with Newsom's committee. The other committee, headed by liberal activist Tom Steyer, has spent $12 million (as of Mid-October) but does not coordinate with Newsom's committee. While some Democrats expressed chagrin over Steyer's efforts, others have expressed the opinion that his work is "more likely to help than harm".[69]

The liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, which is normally in favor of independent redistricting commissions, stated that redistricting commissions should be put on hold until the US Congress "establishes federal standards for redistricting that all states must abide by".[70]

Opposition

Thumb
"No on Prop. 50" signs in Southern California.

Two main committees were formed in opposition to the proposition: One named "Stop Sacramento's Power Grab", backed by Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, and the other named "Protect Voters First", backed by Charles Munger Jr.[71] Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's most recent Republican to have served as governor has backed Munger Jr.'s efforts, but did not formally join the latter's campaign committee.[72] McCarthy announced that he plans on raising $100 million for his committee, with immediate past chair of the California Republican Party, Jessica Millan Patterson, tapped to lead McCarthy's committee.[73] Both Schwarzenegger and Munger played a significant role in bringing about the state's current redistricting commission, with Munger having spent $12 million on the proposition to create the commission.[74][75][76] Munger donated $10 million to kick-off his committee. Both committees were planning on distancing themselves from Donald Trump.[71]

Democratic State Assembly member Jasmeet Bains, who is running against incumbent Republican Congressman David Valadao in 2026, also came out in opposition to the proposition.[77]

Neutral

Common Cause issued a statement that it "will not pre-emptively oppose mid-decade redistricting in California".[78] As a result, multiple advisory board members resigned.[79]

The League of Women Voters of California, a leading proponent of Proposition 20 in 2010, had initially issued a statement opposing the redistricting,[80] but changed its position to neutral after the State Legislature voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot.[81] The Charles Munger Jr.-formed committee used quotes from the original opposition in mailers that it sent out, without mentioning that the league had dropped its opposition.[82]

Remove ads

Endorsements

Yes
Executive branch officials
U.S. senators
U.S. representatives
Statewide officials
State senators
State representatives
National party officials
Local officials
Individuals
Political parties
Labor unions
Organizations
Newspapers
Government bodies
No
Executive branch officials
U.S. representatives
Statewide officials
State senators
State representatives
Individuals
Political parties
Local officials
Local party officials
Organizations
Newspapers
Government bodies
Declined to endorse
Organizations
Political parties
Government bodies
Remove ads

Polling

More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
Remove ads

Results

Summarize
Perspective

Initial results were announced on the evening of November 4 (Pacific Time Zone). Unofficial results will be made available during the canvassing process after Election Day. County election officials have 30 days to tabulate all the ballots received or mailed within the deadline, with the California Secretary of State certifying the results by Day 38 after the election.[220]

More information Choice, Votes ...

By county

More information County, Yes ...

Post-election

Post-election litigation

The day after Proposition 50 passed, the California Republican Party and several Republican voters, including Assemblymember David Tangipa, filed a lawsuit to block the new map, alleging that it favored Hispanic voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.[222][223][224]

See also

Notes

Summarize
Perspective
  1. [a]
    A bill numbered SB-280 was introduced February 5, 2025. On August 18 the content of the original bill was removed and replaced with the bill as passed into law (with very minor modifications) on August 21.[25][26]
  2. [b]
    In the State Assembly, all 57 votes for the bill were from Democrats. All Republicans, joined by one Democrat, Jasmeet Bains, voted against. Two Democrats, Dawn Addis and Alex Lee did not cast a vote[29]
  3. [c]
    In the State Senate, two Republicans (Marie Alvarado-Gil and Kelly Seyarto) did not cast a vote. All other state senators voted along party line with Democrats voting for the bill, and Republicans voting against the bill.[29]
  4. [d]
    Similar to SB-280, AB-604 was introduced February 13, 2025, and on August 18 the content of the original bill was removed and replaced with the bill as passed into law on August 21 with no additional modifications.[34][35]
  5. [e]
    The differences between the roll-call votes for SB 280 and AB 604 were: in the Assembly Mia Bonta did not cast a vote for AB 604 but voted for SB 280, and in the Senate, Kelly Seyarto voted no on AB 604 and did not cast a vote on SB 280.
  6. [f]
    The Trump administration's announcement also included sending similar monitors for the concurrent elections in New Jersey.
  7. [g]
    The 11 individual newspapers include:
  8. [h]
    Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear
  9. [i]
    Undecided pushed
  10. [j]
    Phrased as "support returning congressional redistricting authority to state legislators"
  11. [k]
    Phrased as "support keeping the independent redistricting commission"

Partisan clients

  1. [A]
    Poll sponsored by the United States Justice Foundation
  2. [B]
    Pollster has conducted surveys for Gavin Newsom.

References

Further reading

External links

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads