The map defined in Proposition 50 is a Democraticgerrymander redistricting intended to offset Republican-favored gerrymander redistricting in Texas. It redraws several congressional districts to incorporate larger shares of Democratic-leaning urban and suburban voters, reducing Republican registration advantages in multiple swing areas and converting several previously competitive or Republican-held seats into safely Democratic ones.[3]
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.[8]
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.[9] Two days later, Newsom announced that the deadline had passed and he would move forward with his own redistricting effort.[10]
The proposed map was drawn by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell,[11] and formally submitted to the legislature by theDemocratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[12] Proponents of the maps stated 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%,[12] although there are certain cities, notablyLodi, would be split up, whereas they were not before.[13] Neutral observers, however, have described the maps as an "aggressive Democratic gerrymander" that would more than double the bias in the current map.[14]
It targets five seats currently held by Republicans:[15][16][17]
Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), the district would lose the Republican-leaning areas along the Oregon border while gaining Democratic-leaning areas aroundSanta Rosa. Those areas along the Oregon border would then join areas of theNorth Coast in the Democratic-leaning2nd district.
Ken Calvert (CA-41), the district would be moved from the swing areas of the westernInland Empire to Democratic-leaning areas inLos Angeles County. The western Inland Empire would then be split up among adjacent districts.
Darrell Issa (CA-48), the district would lose some Republican-leaning areas in EasternSan Diego County while gaining some Democratic-leaning areas around theCoachella Valley. Those Republican-leaning areas would then be split up among Western San Diego County's Democratic-leaning districts.
The proposed map is also expected to help seven Democrats who represent swing districts:[16]
Adam Gray (CA-13): The advantage enjoyed by Republicans would go down by 5.5 percentage points and would effectively be eliminated.
Jim Costa (CA-21): The advantage enjoyed by Democrats would increase by 2.2 percentage points.
George T. Whitesides (CA-27): The advantage enjoyed by Democrats would increase by 5.5 percentage points.
Derek Tran (CA-45): The advantage enjoyed by Democrats would increase from 1.5 to 4 percentage points.
Dave Min (CA-47): The advantage enjoyed by Democrats would increase from 4 to 10 percentage points.
Mike Levin (CA-49): The advantage enjoyed by Democrats would increase by 4 percentage points.
In six districts, the large voter registration advantage that Democrats enjoy would drop by more than 10 percentage points, but would still favor the Democrats:[16]
Jared Huffman (CA-2): The Democratic advantage would drop by 20.9 percentage points.
Mike Thompson (CA-4): The Democratic advantage would drop by 17 percentage points.
Doris Matsui (CA-7): The Democratic advantage would drop by 17.1 percentage points.
John Garamendi (CA-8): The Democratic advantage would drop by 10.1 percentage points.
Robert Garcia (CA-42): The Democratic advantage would drop by 19.5 percentage points.
Scott Peters (CA-50): The Democratic advantage would drop by 11.6 percentage points.
The proposed map is expected to help one Republican who represents a swing district:Young Kim (CA-40). The Republican advantage will increase by 9.7 percentage points.[16]
In 23 districts the change would be 2 percentage points or less.[16]
Three actions were necessary to place Proposition 50 on the ballot:[18][19]
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.[22][23] 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.[25][c] GovernorNewsom signed it into law later in the day.[26] ACA 8 also passed by that same vote tally, although as a legislative constitutional amendment it did not need the governor's signature.[27] ACA 8 was chaptered by theSecretary of State on August 21, 2025, at Resolution Chapter 156, Statues of 2025.[27] AB 604, which set the boundaries of the districts, passed 56 to 20 in the Assembly and 30 to 9 in the Senate.[28][d][e]
If approved by voters, new congressional maps would be enacted prior to the2026 United States House of Representatives elections.[33] The new maps would last through 2030, after which the state commission would draw up a new map to adjust district lines after the decennialU.S. Census.
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.[34]
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.[35] The California Supreme Court also rejected the second lawsuit.[36]
On September 4, political advisorSteve Hilton, a Republican candidate in the2026 CA 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 andCA 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 television stationKFSN-TV that they did not respond because they were notproperly served.[37] On October 3, Hilton's preliminary injunction was filed with the district court.[38] On October 24, Judge Kenly Kato denied the petition toenjoin the proposition, stating that the lawsuit could continue after the election if the proposition passes.[39]
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".[40] 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.[41][42]
On August 25, the day that the four Republican state legislators filed their second lawsuit,Donald Trump announced that he will ask theUnited States Justice Department to sue in federal court to block Proposition 50. California's governorGavin Newsom responded in a tweet, "BRING IT".[43]
A postcard with election information that was sent to voters inSonoma County for the special election.A Proposition 50 mail-in-ballot sent to voters inLos Angeles County.
The cost for the special election has been estimated at $282 million, of which $251 million is incurred by the counties to conduct the election and reimbursable by the state.[44] The cost of the election increased by $2 million because the Voter Information Guide mailed out by theCalifornia Secretary of State to all California households with voters had a typo, necessitating mailing postcards with a correction.[45]
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 are put in the envelopes for various reasons, 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.[46]
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 Webber criticized the move asintimidation "masquerading as oversight".[48][f]
Support for the measure is expected to be highlypartisan, with supporters of the measure likely being members of theDemocratic Party, while those in opposition are expected to be members of the Republican Party.[49]
Within a month after the special election was called, Gavin Newsom'scommittee supporting the proposition raised $70 million, with $10 million coming fromGeorge Soros and his family.[56] 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'.[57]
A couple of other committees also spent money promoting the proposition. One, by the House Majority PAC, aSuper PAC ofHouse Democrats has spent $10 million (as of Mid-October) and works closely with Newsom's committee. The other committee, headed by liberal activistTom 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".[58]
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."[59]
Two maincommittees were formed in opposition to the proposition: One named "Stop Sacramento's Power Grab", backed by FormerSpeaker of the HouseKevin McCarthy, and the other named "Protect Voters First", backed byCharles Munger Jr.[60]Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's most recentRepublican to have served asgovernor has backed Munger Jr.'s efforts, but did not formally join the latter's campaign committee.[61] McCarthy announced that he plans on raising $100 million for his committee, with immediate past chair of theCalifornia Republican Party, Jessica Millan Patterson, tapped to lead McCarthy's committee.[62] Both Schwarzenegger and Munger played a significant role in bringing about thestate's current redistricting commission, with Munger having spent $12 million on the proposition to create the commission.[63][64][65] Munger donated $10 million to kick-off his committee. Both committees were planning on distancing themselves fromDonald Trump.[60]
Democratic State Assembly memberJasmeet Bains, who is running against incumbent Republican CongressmanDavid Valadao in 2026, also came out in opposition to the proposition.[66]
Common Cause issued a statement that it "will not pre-emptively oppose mid-decade redistricting in California."[67] As a result, multiple advisory board members resigned.[68]
TheLeague of Women Voters of California, a leading proponent ofProposition 20 in 2010, had initially issued a statement opposing the redistricting,[69] but changed its position to neutral after the State Legislature voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot.[70] TheCharles Munger Jr.-formed committee used quotes from the original opposition in mailers, without mentioning that the league had dropped its opposition.[71]
"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."
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 theCalifornia Secretary of State certifying the results by Day 38 after the election.[201]
^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.[20][21]
^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[24]
^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.[24]
^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.[29][30]
^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.
.svg)
)_(new_version).svg)
Interactive map of proposed redistricting,California State Assembly
.png)
