Don’t Let California Join the Gerrymandering Game

Across the country, high-stakes chess games are being played out and the pieces are us. While the media frames every move as a fight for “democracy,” the truth is more troubling. Politicians on both sides are manipulating voters, rewriting rules, and weaponizing redistricting. California’s Proposition 50 isn’t a defense against that game; it’s another move in it.

In the year ahead, the U.S. Supreme Court will review Callais v. Landry, a Louisiana case that could redefine the Voting Rights Act and determine how race and representation are handled nationwide. The question sounds technical, whether creating majority-Black districts to comply with federal law violates the Constitution, but the implications are enormous.

If the Court rules that race cannot be considered in redistricting, state legislators will have near-total freedom to draw maps as they please. Every state, from New York to California, is watching and positioning.

That’s the part too few voters understand. While we’re told this is about fairness or justice, political insiders already know what’s coming. They know this Court could weaken the Voting Rights Act’s last protections, making future challenges to partisan or racial gerrymanders harder to win. So, they’re moving early, preemptively, to secure advantage before the rules change.

That’s what Proposition 50 is: a preemptive strike disguised as reform

California voters already decided twice that politicians shouldn’t control redistricting. Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010) created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to remove partisan gamesmanship. It worked. For the first time in decades, California’s maps weren’t drawn by incumbents or party strategists.

Now, suddenly, we’re told we must amend the state Constitution mid-cycle because Texas supposedly forced our hand. That’s nonsense. We’ve heard this story before, and it doesn’t pass the smell test.

Governor Newsom’s so-called “reaction” to Texas was anything but spontaneous. The polished maps rolled out in Sacramento didn’t appear overnight. They were prepared months earlier—waiting for a convenient villain to justify their release. Consultants, software, and strategy don’t line up in a week. That was a stealth plan by Governor Newsom to support his 2028 presidential bid—not a response to Texas!

Prop 50 is the next step in that plan: to rewrite California’s Constitution, temporarily dissolve the independent commission for three election cycles, and hand redistricting power back to the Legislature. We’re told it’s a “one-time fix.” But “temporary” measures in politics rarely stay that way. Once you normalize mid-cycle redistricting, it becomes precedent and future governors of either party will use it again.

The justification? To “counteract” Republican maps in other states? In other words, to fight gerrymandering with gerrymandering to stick it to Trump?

That’s not leadership, it’s surrender. Surrendering the moral high ground California fought hard to earn.

And here’s the most disturbing part: both major parties are fine with it when it benefits them. Republicans in Texas and Florida draw maps to entrench power. Democrats in California claim to do it to “defend democracy.” The motives sound different, but the result is the same, voters lose control, and trust erodes further.

Meanwhile, the media feeds us fear and outrage, amplifying whichever narrative benefits their side. Behind the headlines, consultants, donors, and party lawyers work from the same playbook, manipulating boundaries to maximize seats and minimize competition.

Ordinary Californians, especially in rural counties, are treated as pawns. Our communities are sliced up or lumped together based on what benefits strategists in Sacramento or Washington, not what makes sense for representation. We’re told this is how we “fight back” against states like Texas. But democracy isn’t supposed to be a zero-sum game.

That’s why this November’s vote on Proposition 50 matters so much. It’s not just about congressional lines; it’s about whether Sacramento can rewrite the Constitution whenever it wants more control. It’s about whether California remains the national example of fair redistricting after each census or joins the cynical race to the bottom we claim to oppose.

The timing, coinciding with the Supreme Court’s re-argument in Callais and the national debate on the Voting Rights Act, is no coincidence. Political insiders on both coasts are watching for the Court’s signal. If SCOTUS limits challenges to partisan gerrymanders, expect every state to rush to lock in new maps for the next decade. Proposition 50 is California’s preemptive move in that race, a bid to rewrite our Constitution before the Court speaks.

But why would we rush into that chaos?

California doesn’t need to join the gerrymandering race. We should lead by example, by staying out of it. Our independent commission has produced fair, balanced maps that have withstood scrutiny across two census cycles. Instead of rewriting our Constitution to mimic others’ worst instincts, we should double down on the integrity that makes California’s system that will be the envy of the nation; an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Gerrymandering will remain a political weapon through the next census, but the answer isn’t to fight dirty, it’s to stay clean. The moment partisans decide who votes where, trust collapses. If California joins that race, we’ll have no moral ground left to criticize Texas, Florida, or New York for doing the same.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will ripple nationwide. The smart move for California is patience. Let the Court decide. Respect what voters already decided. Leave California’s Constitution and the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission alone.

Who do you trust moving forward drawing our congressional maps; Sacramento Legislator party strategists and consultants or the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission?

Please Vote NO on Proposition 50.