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]
If passed, the new districts would be used for the 2026 United States House of Representatives elections through the 2030 elections.[4] Following the 2030 census, congressional redistricting authority would return to the independent commission under the normal decennial process.
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.[9]
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.[10] Two days later, Newsom announced that the deadline had passed and he would move forward with his own redistricting effort.[11]
The proposed map was drawn by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell,[12] and formally submitted to the legislature by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[13] 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%,[13] although certain cities, such as Lodi, would be newly split.[14] 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.[15]
It targets five seats currently held by Republicans:[16][17][18]
CA-41 (Ken Calvert): The district, currently based in Riverside County, would effectively be split up among adjacent districts, with the new 41st district being based in Democratic-leaning areas of eastern Los Angeles County and northern Orange County. Much of its Republican core would be moved into the 40th district.
CA-13 (Adam Gray): The Republican advantage would decrease by 5.5 percentage points and would effectively be eliminated, due to taking in a large portion of strongly Democratic areas in Stockton in lieu of more conservative areas to the south.
CA-21 (Jim Costa): The Democratic advantage would increase by 2.2 percentage points, due to taking more areas of Fresno and Clovis in lieu of Republican-leaning towns like Exeter.
CA-27 (George T. Whitesides): The Democratic advantage would increase by 5.5 percentage points, due to losing some Republican-leaning areas in the Antelope Valley, while gaining more Democratic-leaning areas deeper in the San Fernando Valley.
CA-45 (Derek Tran): The Democratic advantage would increase from 1.5 to 4 percentage points, due to taking in parts of more Democratic cities such as Norwalk and Santa Ana, in lieu of more Republican cities like Brea and Yorba Linda.
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:[17]
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.[17]
In 23 districts (out of 52), the change would be 2 percentage points or less.[17]
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.[19][20] The UCLA Asian American Studies Center found that the number of Asian American/Pacific Islander plurality districts would increase from three to five.[21]
Legislative history
Three actions were necessary to place Proposition 50 on the ballot:[22][23]
Pass Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 which is the amendment submitted for approval to California voters to redistrict the state
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
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.[26][27] 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.[29][c] Governor Newsom signed it into law later in the day.[30] ACA 8 also passed by that same vote tally, although as a legislative constitutional amendment it did not need the governor's signature.[31] ACA 8 was chaptered by the Secretary of State on August 21, 2025, at Resolution Chapter 156, Statues of 2025.[31] AB 604, which set the boundaries of the districts, passed 56 to 20 in the Assembly and 30 to 9 in the Senate.[32][d][e]
Countermeasures
Legislation
Republicans have proposed legislation as well as their own proposition in response to the placement of Proposition 50 on a special election ballot.
Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio drafted a proposition to target state lawmakers who supported the proposition. Titled "Penalize Politicians Who Manipulate Their Own Districts Initiative",[37] DeMaio's proposal would bar any state lawmaker who voted in favor of Proposition 50 from running for office for ten years.[38] In October 2025, CA Secretary of State Shirley Weber confirmed receipt of DeMaio's proposition, allowing it to began 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.[38]
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.[39] 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.[40] The California Supreme Court also rejected the second lawsuit.[41]
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 StateShirley 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.[42] On October 3, Hilton's preliminary injunction was filed with the district court.[43] 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.[44]
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".[45] 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.[46][47]
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".[48]
Election logistics
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.[49]
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.[50] 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.[51]
Voter information guide error
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.[52]
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.[53]
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 StateShirley Weber criticized the move as voter intimidation "masquerading as oversight".[55][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.[56]
Campaign
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.[57]
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.[64] 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'.[65] The Newsom-led ballot committee ended fundraising for the measure on October 28, 2025, due to having raised enough funds.[66]
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".[67]
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."[68]
Two main committees were formed in opposition to the proposition: One named "Stop Sacramento's Power Grab", backed by Former Speaker of the HouseKevin McCarthy, and the other named "Protect Voters First", backed by Charles Munger Jr.[69]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.[70] 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.[71] 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.[72][73][74] Munger donated $10 million to kick-off his committee. Both committees were planning on distancing themselves from Donald Trump.[69]
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.[75]
Neutral
Common Cause issued a statement that it "will not pre-emptively oppose mid-decade redistricting in California."[76] As a result, multiple advisory board members resigned.[77]
The League of Women Voters of California, a leading proponent of Proposition 20 in 2010, had initially issued a statement opposing the redistricting,[78] but changed its position to neutral after the State Legislature voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot.[79] 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.[80]
"The special election includes a statewide ballot measure about redistricting, Proposition 50. The following is a summary of Proposition 50 exactly as it appeared on the election ballot.
... (How did)/(If you were voting today, how would) you vote on Proposition 50?"
"On November 4, 2025, there will be an election for Proposition 50, which Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps in Response to Texas' Partisan Redistricting. If the election for Proposition 50 were held today, would you vote yes (support) or no (oppose)?"
"If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 50, which 'authorizes temporary changes to congressional district maps in response to Texas' partisan redistricting'?"
"Do you support or oppose California's constitutional amendment known as Proposition 50?"
54%
36%
10%
"Proposition 50 authorizes temporary changes to congressional district maps in response to Texas' partisan redistricting. This constitutional amendment requires temporary use of new congressional district maps through 2030, directs the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to resume enacting congressional district maps in 2031, establishes policy supporting nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide; and has a one-time cost to counties of up to a few million dollars statewide. If the special election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 50?"
"In November 2025, there will be an election for Proposition 50, which authorizes temporary changes to California's congressional district maps in response to Texas' partisan redistricting. If the election for Proposition 50 were held today, would you vote yes (support) or no (oppose)?"
"Suppose a statewide ballot measure to change the way California Congressional District lines are drawn was put before voters in a special election later this year. The measure would ask voters to allow the state to temporarily replace the Congressional district lines drawn by the state's independent citizens commission after the last census in 2020 for use in next year's elections, if Texas goes forward with its own partisan mid-term redistricting plan. The measure would also return the authority to redraw California's Congressional district lines to the state's independent citizens commission for the next census in 2030. If you were voting today, would you vote YES or NO on this proposed ballot measure?"
Question phrasing not available, described in Axios as: "Proposition 50 allows new maps to be designed on a temporary basis, triggered by partisan action in other states such as Texas, and retains the independent redistricting commission".
"In both 2008 and 2010, California voters passed initiatives to give an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to draw the state's legislative and congressional districts, in order to reduce the influence of politicians. Governor Newsom has suggested returning congressional line drawing authority back to the Legislature, citing concerns that redistricting efforts in Republican states would give them a partisan advantage."
"Do you support or oppose the proposal to redraw California's congressional map ahead of the 2026 Midterm Elections?"
33%
25%
42%
Results
Initial results are expected to be 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.[215]
↑ 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.[24][25]
↑ 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[28]
↑ 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.[28]
↑ 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.[33][34]
↑ 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.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.