The map defined in Proposition 50 is a Democraticgerrymander claimed to intend to offset thegerrymander by Texas Republicans, both of which are part of the broader2025–2026 United States redistricting effort. 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.[6] Republicans have responded to Proposition 50 with legislation, their own propositions, and litigation.
With the passage ofProposition 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 thestate constitution, any such changes to the redistricting power would also require a voter-approved constitutional amendment.[11]
On August 11, 2025, Newsom sent a letter toDonald Trump, stating that California would pause any mid-decade redistricting effort if other states called off their efforts.[12] Two days later, Newsom announced that the deadline had passed and he would move forward with his own redistricting effort.[13]
The new map was drawn by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell,[14] and formally submitted to the legislature by theDemocratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[15] 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%,[15] although certain cities, such asLodi, will be newly split.[16] Non-partisan observers saw it as agerrymandering; for example, analyst Nathaniel Rakich described the maps as an "aggressive Democratic gerrymander" that will more than double the bias in the current map as a result of simultaneously cracking Republican districts and unpacking extremely Democratic districts through absorbing more-Republican areas.[17]
It targets five seats currently held by Republicans:[18][19][20]
CA-41 (Ken Calvert): The old district, currently based inRiverside County, will effectively be split up among adjacent districts, with the new 41st district being based in Democratic-leaning areas of easternLos Angeles County and northernOrange County. Much of its Republican core will be moved into the 40th district.
CA-13 (Adam Gray): The district takes in a large portion of strongly Democratic areas inStockton, while losing more conservative areas in Fresno County. Resultantly, the Republican advantage will decrease by 5.5 percentage points, effectively being eliminated.
CA-21 (Jim Costa): The district gains more areas of Fresno proper andClovis, and loses Republican-leaning towns likeExeter. The Democratic advantage will increase by 2.2 percentage points.
CA-45 (Derek Tran): The district gains parts of cities likeNorwalk andSanta Ana, while losing cities likeBrea andPlacentia. The Democratic advantage will increase from 1.5 to 4 percentage points.
As a result of cracking Republican votes, many districts will become less Democratic-leaning. In six districts, the Democratic voter registration advantage will decrease by a margin of more than 10 percentage points:[19]
However, all six districts will still favor the Democrats.
The new map is expected to help one Republican who represents a swing district:
Young Kim (CA-40). The district will 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.[19]
In 23 districts (out of 52), the change will be 2 percentage points or less.[19]
In terms of the impact of the new maps on protected groups under the federalVoting Rights Act, a study fromCaltech andCal Poly Pomona found that the number of Latino majority districts will stay the same and two additional districts where Latinos make up 30–50% of the citizen voting age population will be added.[21][22] TheUCLA Asian American Studies Center found that the number of Asian American/Pacific Islander plurality districts will increase from three to five.[23]
Three actions were necessary to place Proposition 50 on the ballot:[24][25]
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 eachcensus 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-thirdssupermajority was needed to place the measure on the ballot.[28][29] TheCalifornia State Assembly surpassed the 54 votes needed for a supermajority by passing the bill on a 57 to 20 vote.[b] Hours later, theCalifornia State Senate surpassed the 27 votes needed for a supermajority by approving the bill on a 30 to 8 vote.[31][c] Governor Newsom signed it into law later in the day.[32] ACA 8 also passed by that same vote tally, although as a legislative constitutional amendment it did not need the governor's signature.[33] ACA 8 was chaptered by theSecretary of State on August 21, 2025, at Resolution Chapter 156, Statues of 2025.[33] AB 604, which set the boundaries of the districts, passed 56 to 20 in the Assembly and 30 to 9 in the Senate.[34][d][e]
A couple of different attempts were made to put propositions on the2026 general election ballot for amendments to thestate's constitution in response to Proposition 50. To put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot requires gathering signatures of voters, with the minimum number set at 8% of the number of valid votes cast inthe previous gubernatorial election (874,641 signatures). The signatures must be collected within 180 days, but turned in no later than 131 days before election day (June 25, 2026).[39]
On October 22, 2025, the Secretary of State authorized Republican AssemblymanCarl DeMaio to begin gathering signatures for a proposed proposition of a constitutional amendment to target state lawmakers who supported the proposition. Titled "Penalize Politicians Who Manipulate Their Own Districts Initiative,"[40] DeMaio's proposal would bar any state lawmaker who voted in favor of Proposition 50 from running for office for ten years.[41] DeMaio's deadline to gather the 874,641 signatures needed to place the proposition on the ballot is April 20, 2026.[41]
The day after the Proposition 50 passed, Republican activist and attorney James V. Lacy filed paperwork for a constitutional amendment to undo Proposition 50 and revert for the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections to the district lines that were drawn in 2021 by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.[42]
Four California state legislators (state senatorsTony Strickland andSuzette Martinez Valladares and assembly membersTri Ta andKate Sanchez) filed a lawsuit with theCalifornia 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.[43] 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 theCalifornia redistricting commission draw congressional districts. TheCalifornia Republican Party announced that it was backing the plaintiffs, who were represented by a law firm founded by U.S. Assistant Attorney GeneralHarmeet Dhillon.[44] The California Supreme Court also rejected the second lawsuit.[45]
On September 4, political advisorSteve Hilton, a Republican candidate in the2026 California gubernatorial election, filed a lawsuit in theU.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 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 affiliateKFSN-TV that they did not respond because they were notproperly served.[46] On October 3, Hilton's preliminary injunction was filed with the district court.[47] On October 24, JudgeKenly Kato denied the petition toenjoin the proposition, stating that the lawsuit could continue after the election if the proposition passes.[48]
On September 5, U.S. RepresentativeRonny Jackson (R-TX) sued both Newsom and Weber in theU.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".[49] A petition for a temporary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed on October 23 by JudgeMatthew Kacsmaryk for inability to demonstrate a cognizable injury.[50][51] A second lawsuit filed by Jackson, which only differed from the prior suit with the addition of former California U.S. RepresentativeDarrell Issa (R) as a co-plaintiff, was dismissed by Kacsmaryk on October 31 on the same grounds.[52]
On August 25, the day that the four Republican state legislators filed their second lawsuit, President Trump announced that he will ask theUnited States Justice Department to sue in federal court to block Proposition 50. Newsom responded in a tweet, "BRING IT".[53]
A postcard with election information that was sent to voters inSonoma 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.[62]
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.[63] Although theCalifornia Republican Party was urging Republican voters to mail their ballots back as soon as possible, on October 26Donald Trump urged voters not to mail their ballots back, but to vote in person instead.[64]
Image of a postcard mailed by theCalifornia Secretary of State to voters who received a voter information guide with a typo
The initial version of the voter information guide contained atypographical 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 StateShirley Weber blamed theLegislative Analyst's Office for the error, and said that the office would bear the estimated $3 to $4 million for the additional costs incurred as a result of the error.[65]
In mid-October, voters inSacramento County reported that the return envelopes they received along with theirmail-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.[66]
In response to a request by Corrin Rankin, chair of theCalifornia Republican Party, theTrump administration announced on October 24 that theDepartment 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 asvoter intimidation "masquerading as oversight".[68][f]
Another dispute came up when Governor Newsom raised the possibility that theImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) mightraid 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.[69]
Support for the measure was expected to be highlypartisan, with supporters of the measure likely being members of theDemocratic Party, while those in opposition were expected to be members of theRepublican Party.[70]
Within a month after the special election was called, Newsom'spolitical action committee (PAC) supporting the proposition raised $70 million, with $10 million coming fromGeorge Soros and his family.[77] RepresentativeAlexandria 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".[78] The Newsom-led ballot committee announced on October 28 that it 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.[79]
A couple of other committees also spent money promoting the proposition. One, by the House Majority PAC, aSuper PAC ofHouse Democrats spent $10 million (as of Mid-October) and works closely with Newsom's committee. The other committee, headed by liberal activistTom Steyer, 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".[80]
Combined spending to support the proposition was $138 million.[81] The liberal think tankCenter for American Progress, which is normally in favor of independent redistricting commissions, stated that redistricting commissions should be put on hold until Congress "establishes federal standards for redistricting that all states must abide by".[82]
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 byCharles Munger Jr.[83]Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's most recent Republican to have served as governor backed Munger Jr.'s efforts, but did not formally join the latter's campaign committee,[84] and was later called "cowardly" by Republican officials for not being a more active opponent.[81] McCarthy announced that he planned on raising $100 million for his committee, with immediate past chair of theCalifornia Republican Party, Jessica Millan Patterson, tapped to lead McCarthy's committee.[85] However, as of two weeks prior to the election, McCarthy had only raised $11.4 million of that amount.[86]
Both Schwarzenegger and Munger played a significant role in bringing about theCalifornia Citizens Redistricting Commission, with Munger having spent $12 million on the proposition to create the commission.[87][88][89] Munger donated $10 million to start his committee, and ultimately contributed $32 million in opposition, although his committee ceased advertising weeks prior to the election.[81] Both committees distanced themselves fromDonald Trump, and Trump did not make any comments about the proposition prior to election day.[81] Ultimately, $58 million was raised in opposition among both committees.[81]
Democratic State Assembly memberJasmeet Bains, who is running against incumbent Republican CongressmanDavid Valadao in 2026, also came out in opposition to the proposition.[90]
Common Cause issued a statement that it "will not pre-emptively oppose mid-decade redistricting in California".[91] As a result, multiple advisory board members resigned.[92]
TheLeague of Women Voters of California, a leading proponent ofProposition 20 in 2010, had initially issued a statement opposing the redistricting,[93] but changed its position to neutral after the State Legislature voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot.[94] 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.[95]
"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 inAxios 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."
The results below will continue to be updated until December 4, and certified by theCalifornia Secretary of State on December 12.[235] The table below does not reflect the estimated 12 thousand ballots left to count and the estimated 94 thousandballots that need to be cured as of November 21.[236]
^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.[26][27]
^In theState Assembly, all 57 votes for the bill were from Democrats. All Republicans, joined by one Democrat,Jasmeet Bains, voted against. Two Democrats,Dawn Addis andAlex Lee did not cast a vote[30]
^In theState Senate, two Republicans (Marie Alvarado-Gil andKelly 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.[30]
^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.[35][36]
^The differences between the roll-call votes for SB 280 and AB 604 were: in the AssemblyMia Bonta did not cast a vote forAB 604 but voted forSB 280, and in the Senate,Kelly Seyarto voted no onAB 604 and did not cast a vote onSB 280.
County results.svg)
)_(new_version).svg)
Interactive map of Prop 50's redistricting,California State Assembly
.png)
Yes
