There are millions of Californians who don’t tidily fit into either the MAGA or anti-MAGA camps. For these voters, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s successful push to hold a special election on Nov. 4 — to decide on Proposition 50, which would allow the state to bypass reforms approved by voters in 2008 and 2010 and impose a partisan gerrymander of the state’s 52 House seats — forces a hard choice.
The governor says California must act to create more Democrats in its delegation because of redistricting in Texas — done at President Donald Trump’s urging — that could change the balance in Texas’ House delegation from 25 Republicans and 13 Democrats to a 30-8 GOP edge after 2026 midterm elections. The new maps going before voters in California next month could increase Democrats’ edge in this state from 43-9 to 48-4.
Proposition 50 thus could go a long way toward helping Democrats take back control of the House, putting limits on Trump’s sway over national politics. Given his transgressive and reckless use of power, this argument will appeal to many moderates and independents.
But the counterarguments are also hefty. Copying Trump’s bullying to gain power is unhealthy for a democracy because it normalizes such behavior even more.
And the rarely mentioned reality is that what California Democrats want to do is far more extreme than what Texas Republicans want to do. Even with nominally neutral districts, Republicans only have about 17% of California’s House seats despite 38% of state voters backing Trump in 2024. Reducing that 17% to less than 8% — four of 52 — is a level of mass disenfranchisement that far exceeds what’s likely in Texas. There, 42% of the 2024 presidential vote went to Kamala Harris, and Democrats would have 21% of House seats after November 2026 if voting goes as the Texas GOP hopes. On a strictly statistical basis, what Newsom wants to do to Republican representation in California has parallels to what Deep South states used to do to Black voters for much of the 20th century.
Of course, that disenfranchisement was vastly more offensive because it went far beyond political representation. But even if there is only a surface similarity, it still kicks a hole in the pro-50 side’s fervent belief that it holds the moral high ground.
Who else pokes holes in this claim? Two of the state’s most prominent liberal pundits. Last week, the Los Angeles Times’ George Skelton ridiculed the idea that Newsom is taking the “high road” in undertaking a campaign that so obviously helps his 2028 presidential bid. He also noted the state’s political establishment had a long history of hating independent redistricting, not championing it. This week, the Sacramento Bee’s Tom Philp voiced deep skepticism that independent redistricting would really resume after the 2030 census when the state’s declining share of the national population was already sure to cost several Democrats their House seats. “How often do you see that many powerful leaders of any party willingly lose their jobs?” he wrote.
None of this will matter — or should matter — to those who believe Trump is a primal threat to American values. But it will to those who think Newsom’s measure reflects a “burn down the village to save it” mindset. The Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a no vote on Proposition 50.
