Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ballot Measure Layout

Flag of California, featuring a bear and a star.
State: California
Status: On the ballot
California Proposition 50, the Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment, is on the special election ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 4, 2025.
YES
A "YES" vote supports amending the California Constitution to allow the state to use a new, legislature-drawn congressional district map for 2026 through 2030.

The new congressional district map is included in Assembly Bill 604 (AB 604).

Proposition 50 would provide that the Citizens Redistricting Commission will redraw congressional districts in 2031.
NO
A "NO" vote opposes the constitutional amendment, keeping the existing congressional districts map in place.

The 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission adopted the existing congressional districts map on December 27, 2021, for use in elections from 2022 through 2030.

Overview

What would Proposition 50 change about congressional districts in California?

Ballotpedia reports: California Proposition 50, 2025

Proposition 50 would authorize the state to use a new congressional district map from Assembly Bill 604 (AB 604).[1]

The new congressional district map would be used to elect members of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2026 through 2030. The proposed map would replace the existing maps, which the 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission adopted on December 27, 2021, for elections from 2022 through 2030. Proposition 50 would provide that the Citizens Redistricting Commission will redraw congressional districts in 2031.[1]

AB 604 contains the proposed congressional district map, which cannot take effect without voter approval of Proposition 50. According to Kyle Kondik and J. Miles Coleman, "this map would give Democrats a chance to win up to five additional seats. Three of their targeted seats would be fairly easy pickups, while two of them would be more like Toss-ups."[2] The former three seats are Reps. Doug LaMalfa (R-1), Kevin Kiley (R-3), and Ken Calvert (R-41), while the latter two seats described as toss-ups are David Valadao (R-22) and Darrell Issa (R-48).[3] You can view the proposed map here.

Proposition 50 would also add language to the California Constitution declaring: "It is the policy of the State of California to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. The people of the State of California call on the Congress of the United States to pass federal legislation and propose an amendment of the United States Constitution to require the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide."[1]

Have other states pursued congressional redistricting in 2025?

See also: Redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) proposed allowing the California State Legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts ahead of elections in 2026. He said the ballot measure is intended to counter a mid-cycle redistricting proposal in Texas: "They’re not screwing around. We cannot afford to screw around either. We have got to fight fire with fire."[4]

The Texas State Legislature approved a new congressional redistricting plan on August 22.[5] According to The Texas Tribune, the plan "[positioned] the GOP to net up to five additional seats in Texas."[6] Gov. Greg Abbott (R) called a special session to address redistricting, among other issues, following a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that said four districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.[7] Rep. Todd Hunter (R-32), who co-authored the redistricting bill, said “the underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance,” and Sen. Phil King (R-10), the bill's sponsor in the Senate, added, “if Texas does not take this action, there is an extreme risk that that Republican [congressional] majority will be lost.”[8] President Donald Trump (R) supported the legislation, saying, "I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats."[9]

Gov. Newsom said Proposition 50 "will nullify what happens in Texas. We will pick up five seats with the consent of the people, and that is the difference between the approach we’re taking and the approach [Texas Republicans are] taking."[10]

In the U.S. House of Representatives, both House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D) commented on the redistricting efforts. Speaker Johnson said, "Democrats across the nation have played politics with redistricting for decades, and [California] is just the latest example. Republicans who are following state and federal laws will not be lectured by people who abused the system."[11] Minority Leader Jeffries stated, "Donald Trump and House Republicans believe the only way they can win the midterm elections is to cheat."[12] He also said, "California responded forcefully … and we will continue to respond, when necessary, across the country."[13]

How did the state's current redistricting process originate?

Debates over redistricting efforts occur against the backdrop of 100 years of redistricting-related ballot measures in California, with the topic appearing on the ballot at least 20 times since 1926. The current process, involving a non-politician commission, was established through ballot measures in 2008 and 2010, following the defeat of a related proposal in 2005.

In 2008, California Common Cause proposed Proposition 11, which transferred state legislative redistricting from the legislature to a 14-member California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Proposition 11 was approved, with 50.8% of the vote. Proposition 11 did not address congressional redistricting. In 2010, Charles Munger, Jr., a physicist and political donor, filed Proposition 20, which transferred congressional redistricting from the legislature to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Voters approved Proposition 20, with 61.2% of the vote.

Alongside Proposition 11, voters decided a competing ballot measure, Proposition 27, which would have eliminated the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, returning the state legislative redistricting process to the California State Legislature. Voters rejected the ballot initiative, with 59.4% voting ‘No.’

Since 2010, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission has conducted congressional redistricting twice—in 2011 and 2021. As of 2025, Democrats held 43 of 52 of the state's seats in the U.S. House, and Republicans held the other nine.

Who is funding the campaigns for and against Proposition 50?

As of September 11, about $63.9 million had been raised for and against Proposition 50. Supporters received $28.7 million, while opponents received $35.2 million.

The largest donor to the support campaign, the House Majority PAC, contributed $5.0 million—17.5% of the campaign's total funds. House Majority PAC is a super PAC that focuses on electing Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives. The second largest donor was the California Teachers Association (CTA) Issues PAC, contributing $3.0 million. CTA is a labor union for public school teachers and education support staff in California. The third largest donors, each contributing $2.5 million, were the California Nurses Association, a labor union representing nurses in California, and Michael Moritz, a venture capitalist and former managing partner of Sequoia Capital.

The largest donor to the opposition campaign, Charles T. Munger, Jr., contributed $30.1 million—85.5% of the opposition's total funds. Munger, a physicist and political donor, is the son of Charles Munger Sr., who was a business partner at Berkshire Hathaway. He was chairperson of the Santa Clara County Republican Party (2012-2015). He contributed to several ballot measure campaigns in the 2000s and 2010s, including campaigns to create the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The second largest donor was the Congressional Leadership Fund, contributing $5.0 million. The Congressional Leadership Fund is a super PAC that focuses on electing Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Compared to Proposition 50, the three ballot measures that created (Proposition 11), expanded (Proposition 20), and sought to repeal (Proposition 27) the Citizens Redistricting Commission drew a combined $39.5 million in campaign contributions from supporters and opponents.

Assembly Bill 604

On August 18, 2025, the proposed congressional maps were introduced into the state Legislature as Assembly Bill 604 (AB 604).[14] AB 604 cannot take effect without voter approval of Proposition 50.

Redistricting Partners, LLC, based in Sacramento, California, drafted the congressional districts map that the legislature adopted.[15][16]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title is as follows:[17]

“

Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps in Response to Texas' Partisan Redistricting. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.[18]

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary is as follows:[17]

“
  • In response to Texas' mid-decade partisan congressional redistricting, this measure temporarily requires new congressional district maps, as passed by the Legislature in August 2025, to be used in California's congressional elections through 2030.
  • Retains California's independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and directs the Commission to resume enacting congressional district maps in 2031 after the 2030 census and every ten years thereafter.
  • Establishes state policy supporting use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.[18]
 ”

Fiscal impact statement

The legislative analyst's fiscal impact statement is as follows:[17]

“

One-time costs to counties of up to a few million dollars statewide. County costs would be to update election materials to reflect new congressional district maps.[18]

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XXI, California Constitution

The ballot measure would add a Section 4 to Article XXI of the California Constitution. The following underlined text would be added:[1]

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

SEC. 4. (a) It is the policy of the State of California to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. The people of the State of California call on the Congress of the United States to pass federal legislation and propose an amendment of the United States Constitution to require the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.

(b) In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law, the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21400) of Division 21 of the Elections Code shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d).

(c) (1) The Attorney General has the sole legal standing to defend any action regarding a congressional district map adopted pursuant to subdivision (b).

(2) The California Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in all proceedings in which a congressional district map adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) is challenged.

(d) The Citizens Redistricting Commission established pursuant to Section 1 shall continue to adjust the boundary lines of the congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts in conformance with the standards and process set forth in Section 2 in 2031, and every 10 years thereafter as provided in Section 1.[18]

Support

Yes on 50, also known as The Election Rigging Response Act, Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee, is leading the campaign supporting the constitutional amendment.[19] Sponsors named the constitutional amendment the Election Rigging Response Act.[1]

Supporters

Officials

Former Officials

Political Parties

Government Entities

  • San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
  • San Francisco Board of Supervisors
  • Los Angeles City Council

Unions

Organizations


Arguments

  • Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-2): "This is about more than drawing lines on a map; it’s about drawing a line in the sand to stop Texas and Trump from rigging the election. This is about protecting the people of the Golden State, our democracy, and making sure voters have a say."
  • State Asm. Marc Berman (D-23): "Donald Trump has unapologetically targeted California time and again over the past six months - targeting workers who power our economy, targeting California’s best in the world UC system, targeting the healthcare systems that Californians rely on when they get sick. Realizing how unpopular these actions are, Trump and Republicans now want to rig our democracy to guarantee they remain in power. We did not choose this fight, we do not want this fight, but with our democracy on the line, California cannot run away from this fight. Enough is enough. Trump and Republicans still have the chance to back away from their un-American power grab. California’s new maps will only go into effect if Republicans move forward with their reckless plans. As Californians, we do not bend the knee to those with authoritarian tendencies. If they don’t back down, California will fight back – and we will win."
  • State Asm. Rick Chavez Zbur (D-51): "You don’t go into a fight where the other side has a machine gun and respond with a butter knife. The cost of this is a very small percentage compared to what is sort of at risk if we continue to allow a Congress in place that is really following the direction of an administration that’s aimed at punishing California."
  • Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): "California will not sit idle as Trump and his Republican lapdogs shred our country’s democracy before our very eyes. In just six months, Trump’s unchecked power has cost Americans billions and taken an ax to the greatest democracy we’ve ever known. This moment calls for urgency and action – that is what we are putting before voters this November, a chance to fight back against his anti-American ways."
  • David B. Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association: "Over the past several months, we have seen the Trump administration freeze funds for critical education programs, cut healthcare for millions of our students and their families, attempt to dismantle the Department of Education, and pass a new voucher program designed to destroy public education entirely. It is clear that we are also now facing an unprecedented power grab by Texas and other states to steal congressional seats and rig the 2026 election in favor of the current federal administration. This is a direct and urgent attack on our democracy. If this power grab goes unchecked, we will only see more drastic cuts to public education, healthcare, and other critical services and a further erosion of basic civil and human rights in our communities."


Opposition

No on Prop 50 - Protect Voters First and No on Prop 50 - Stop Sacramento's Power Grab registered as political action committees opposing Proposition 50.[20][21]

Opponents

Officials

Former Officials

Political Parties

Organizations

  • California Business Roundtable
  • California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
  • California Manufacturers & Technology Association
  • Congressional Leadership Fund
  • Reform California

Individuals


Arguments

  • U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-3): "It’s clearly a threat to democracy and representative government in California, unlike anything we’ve ever seen. California voters have very clearly expressed their will that we should not have gerrymandering, that drawing district lines should not be done by politicians."
  • Christian Martinez, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee: "Gavin Newsom’s latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream. Newsom’s made it clear: he’ll shred California’s Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority."
  • Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-3): "It’s about power. We know that it’s about power on both sides, rigging congressional districts to get partisan results. That’s what a gerrymander is. … You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens? You burn it all down. In this case, it affects our most fundamental American principle: representation."
  • Charles T. Munger Jr.: "Democratic politicians should seek to channel voter outrage at Texas Republicans’ efforts to game the system into election results. By doing so, they could flip hitherto unreachable seats currently held by Republicans and overcome the Texas gerrymander. But if Democratic politicians try to gerrymander California, then they lose the moral high ground. ... If our nation devolves into competing efforts to gerrymander, we will lose the ability to fight back against overreach by either party. Sadly, instead of focusing on flipping seats, Governor Newsom has chosen to undermine one of California’s most significant reforms."
  • Jessica Millan Patterson, former chairperson of the California Republican Party: "California voters have already said no to Prop 50. They did that when they put the Citizens Redistricting Commission on the ballot back in 2010 and passed it overwhelmingly. California voters believe that the power to draw district lines should reside with the people. It should not be given to politicians in Sacramento where they get to choose who their constituents are. Constituents should be choosing their representatives."


Neutral

The following organizations announced their intent to remain neutral or otherwise take no position on Proposition 50.

Arguments

  • Darius Kemp, director of Common Cause California, said, "After a careful analysis of the process, we have determined California meets our fairness criteria. Given this meets Common Cause’s standards, we will not support nor oppose the efforts going forward and will focus on election protection, voter education, and empowerment." Common Cause also stated, "Texas initially imposed mid-decade partisan maps to tilt the vote in Republican’s favor ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and California implemented a similar effort to counterbalance this move. In response, Common Cause launched its six fairness criteria to evaluate any proposed maps and protect fair representation for the people should other states engage in mid-decade redistricting. ... The organization found California meets its criteria, while Texas fails to meet each of the six fairness standards."[25]
  • The League of Women Voters of California issued the following statement: "Early in the process, before the ballot language was written, we, along with several other good government groups, issued independent statements opposing mid-cycle redistricting. This was consistent with the League’s long-standing positions at both the state and national level. Since then, and on the heels of Texas’ decision, California Governor Newsom and the legislature moved forward to do mid-cycle redistricting. Now, the ballot measure language has been finalized. While the process for the redistricting in California differs from what is happening in Texas, the California League recognizes the importance of staying aligned with our national League and with state and local Leagues, such as in Texas, that are, or may soon be, in court challenging unfair maps. With all of these factors in mind, we have decided not to take a position on Proposition 50."[26]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures
The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through June 30, 2025, and interim reports available as of September 11, 2025.


Yes on 50, The Election Rigging Response Act, Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee and Progressive Era Issues Committee Supporting Yes on 50 PACs registered to support Proposition 50. Together, the PACs reported $28.7 million. The two largest donors were the House Majority PAC ($5.0 million) and the California Teachers Association Issues PAC ($3.0 million).[27][28]

The No on Prop 50 - Protect Voters First and No on Prop 50 - Stop Sacramento's Power Grab PACs registered to oppose Proposition 50. Together, the committees reported $35.2 million. The two largest donors were Charles Munger, Jr. ($30.1 million) and the Congressional Leadership Fund ($5.0 million).[28]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $28,734,339.62 $14,226.94 $28,748,566.56 $83,319.61 $97,546.55
Oppose $35,192,044.27 $25,767.06 $35,217,811.33 $5,785.50 $31,552.56
Total $63,926,383.89 $39,994.00 $63,966,377.89 $89,105.11 $129,099.11

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.[28]

Committees in support of Proposition 50
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Yes on 50, The Election Rigging Response Act, Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee $27,257,339.62 $14,226.94 $27,271,566.56 $33,319.61 $47,546.55
Progressive Era Issues Committee Supporting Yes on 50 $1,477,000.00 $0.00 $1,477,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Total $28,734,339.62 $14,226.94 $28,748,566.56 $83,319.61 $97,546.55

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.[28]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
House Majority PAC $5,020,000.00 $0.00 $5,020,000.00
California Teachers Association Issues PAC $3,000,000.00 $0.00 $3,000,000.00
California Nurses Association $2,500,000.00 $0.00 $2,500,000.00
Michael Moritz $2,500,000.00 $0.00 $2,500,000.00
Newsom for California Governor 2022 $2,000,000.00 $0.00 $2,000,000.00
Reed Hastings $2,000,000.00 $0.00 $2,000,000.00
SEIU California State Council $1,000,000.00 $6,424.10 $1,006,424.10
Standing Committee on Political Education of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO Small Contributor Committee $1,001,300.00 $0.00 $1,001,300.00
Advocacy Action Fund $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
Bill Bloomfield $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
Service Employees International Union Local 721 CTW, CLC Workers' Strength Committee $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
Laurie Michaels $750,000.00 $0.00 $750,000.00
California Faculty Association Political Issues Committee $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Paul Graham $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
SEIU Local 521 $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Quinn Delaney $450,000.00 $0.00 $450,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.[28]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 50
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
No on Prop 50 - Protect Voters First $30,094,960.50 $0.00 $30,094,960.50 $5,785.50 $5,785.50
No on Prop 50 - Stop Sacramento's Power Grab $5,097,083.77 $25,767.06 $5,122,850.83 $0.00 $25,767.06
Total $35,192,044.27 $25,767.06 $35,217,811.33 $5,785.50 $31,552.56

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committees.[28]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Charles T. Munger, Jr. $30,094,960.50 $0.00 $30,094,960.50
No on Prop 50 Congressional Leadership Fund $5,000,000.00 $0.00 $5,000,000.00
Susan Groff $50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00
AMMACASO, Inc $20,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00
Doug LaMalfa Committee $0.00 $18,943.48 $18,943.48
Free California: A Ballot Measure Committee Controlled by James Gallagher $0.00 $6,823.58 $6,823.58
Louis Rohl $5,236.00 $0.00 $5,236.00
Jason Davenport $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00
Lynn Booth $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00
Mercury Aviation Companies, LLC $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00

Right Path California

On September 3, 2025, the campaign supporting the ballot measure, Yes on 50, filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission. The complaint alleged that Right Path California paid for "disclaimer and disclosure provisions in connection with communications opposing Proposition 50" without the required disclosure language and spent more than $50,000 on them—an amount that should have triggered filings with the state's campaign finance division.[29]

Hannah Milgrom, spokesperson for Yes on 50, said, "The ‘NO’ campaign is illegally trying to hide their Trump donors and trick Californians. They are helping Donald Trump rig the next election and keep Republicans in total control of the federal government. Californians will see through their lies and lawbreaking."[30]

According to The San Francisco Standard, Right Path California had not responded as of September 3.[30]

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2025 ballot measure polls
Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)
Poll
Dates
Sample size
Margin of error
Support
Oppose
Undecided
Berkeley IGS Poll August 11 - August 17 4,950 RV ± 1.5% 48.0% 32.0% 20.0%
Question: "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?"
Emerson College August 4 - August 5 1,000 RV ± 3.0% 33.2% 24.9% 42.0%
Question: "Do you support or oppose the proposal to redraw California's congressional map ahead of the 2026 Midterm Elections?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.


Other

The following are related polls that did not ask respondents about their support or opposition to the proposal itself:

  • Citrin Center | Possibility Lab | POLITICO Summer Policy Survey surveyed 1,445 registered voters between July 28 and August 12. The question was: "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 keeping the independent redistricting commission (Support) or support returning congressional redistricting authority to state legislators (Oppose)?" Of those surveyed:[31]
    • 64% selected "keeping the independent redistricting commission" and
    • 36% selected "returning congressional redistricting authority to state legislators."

Path to the ballot

Amending the California Constitution

See also: Amending the California Constitution

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required during one legislative session for the California State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 54 votes in the California State Assembly and 27 votes in the California State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

A constitutional amendment cannot appear on the ballot until the first statewide election that occurs at least 131 days after the legislature’s approval. However, as this is set in statute, the Legislature can amend the rule. In 2020, for example, the legislature approved five constitutional amendments after the deadline had passed. The legislature passed a bill calling a special election that was consolidated with the general election on November 3, 2020. The last time a special election was called for a ballot measure that wasn’t consolidated with a general election was 2009, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) called a special election for constitutional amendments concerning the state budget.

Stages of the amendment

Proposal

  • July 15, 2025: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) proposed a constitutional amendment to allow for the legislature to conduct congressional redistricting. His proposal followed a comment from President Donald Trump (R), who described a mid-decade redistricting plan in Texas as “just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats.”[32]
    • Gov. Newsom responded, "Trump said he’s going to steal 5 Congressional seats in Texas and gerrymander his way into a 2026 win. Well, two can play that game. Special sessions. Special elections. Ballot initiatives. New laws. It’s all on the table when democracy is on the line."[33]
    • He elaborated, "I’m talking to members of my Legislature, whatever our alternatives, we could do a special session. I could call for one today, if I chose to, we could then put something on the ballot, and I could call a special election. We can change the Constitution with the consent of the voters, and I think we would win that. I think people understand what’s at stake in California."[34]
  • July 31, 2025: Gov. Newsom said he supported pursuing changes to congressional redistricting through a ballot measure at a special election.[35][36] He stated, "We will go to the people of this state in a transparent way and ask them to consider the new circumstances, to consider these new realities. ... It’s going to be given to the voters for their consideration in a very transparent way so they know exactly what they’re doing and they can go back in 2030 to original form with our independent redistricting intact."[37]
  • August 3, 2025: KCRA 3 reported that Senate and Assembly Democrats were briefed on the proposal.[38]
  • August 8, 2025: Gov. Newsom said "We have till Aug. 22" to pass a resolution for the constitutional amendment to appear on the ballot.[39]
  • August 11, 2025: Gov. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump that said, "If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states. But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it. ... You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make."[40]
    • Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) responded, "If California thinks they’re going to move their needle to the extreme and eliminate five Republican numbers of the United States Congress there, Texas is not going to do five: We will add 10 more Republican seats using the same procedure they are using in California."[40]
  • August 14, 2025: Gov. Newsom announced that the proposed legislative package would be titled The Election Rigging Response Act. The legislation would include bills to call and fund a special election and establish new congressional district boundaries, as well as a resolution to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot.[41]

In the Legislature

  • August 18, 2025: Assembly Speaker Rivas and Senate President McGuire introduced the constitutional amendment as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 (ACA 8).[1] The proposed congressional redistricting map was introduced in Assembly Bill 604 (AB 604), while the legislation calling the special election was introduced in Senate Bill 280 (SB 280). SB 280 would also title the constitutional amendment as Proposition 50.[43][44]
  • August 21, 2025: Legislators amended ACA 8 to remove the provision that required another state to first adopt a new congressional redistricting map. The revised amendment states: “In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025…” Before, ACA 8 read: “…shall become operative only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map…”[1]
  • August 21, 2025: The California State Assembly voted 57-20 to pass ACA 8. At least 54 votes were needed. Among Democrats, the vote was 57-1, with two members not voting. The Assembly's 19 Republicans opposed the constitutional amendment. The one Democrat who voted "No" was Asm. Jasmeet Bains (D-35).[1]
  • August 21, 2025: The California State Senate voted 30-8 to pass ACA 8. At least 27 votes were needed. All Senate Democrats voted for the constitutional amendment. Among Senate Republicans, eight voted against the proposal, and two did not vote.[1]
  • August 21, 2025: As ACA 8 passed both legislative chambers, the constitutional amendment was enrolled with the secretary of state's office as Proposition 50.[1]


Partisan Direction Index = -98.9% (Democratic)
Democratic Support
98.9%
Republican Support
0.0%
How does this vote compare to other legislative ballot measures in 2025?
Learn more about the ballot measures PDI →
California State Assembly
Voted on August 21, 2025
Votes Required to Pass: 54
YesNoNV
Total57202
Total %72.2%25.3%2.5%
Democratic (D)5712
Republican (R)0190
August 21, 2025
Voted on August 21, 2025
Votes Required to Pass: 27
YesNoNV
Total3082
Total %75.0%20.0%5.0%
Democratic (D)3000
Republican (R)082

Litigiation

Strickland, et al. v. Weber, et al.

  • August 18, 2025: State Sens. Tony Strickland (R-36) and Suzette Valladares (R-23) and Asms. Tri Ta (R-7) and Kathryn Sanchez (R-71) filed litigation before the California Supreme Court, arguing that the timeline for Proposition 50 (ACA 8), AB 604, and SB 280 violated Article IV, § 8(a) of the California Constitution.[45]
    • Article IV, § 8(a) provided that bills, other than budget bills, cannot be heard or acted upon until 30 days after their introduction, unless three-fourths of the legislators vote to waive this requirement.
    • Proposition 50 (ACA 8), AB 604, and SB 280 were introduced in February 2025. On August 18, their text was replaced with provisions known as the Election Rigging Response Act (ERRA).
    • Petitioners described this as a gut and amend tactic that is intended to "circumvent a constitutional right of the people to adequate time to review proposed legislation." Petitioners also said, "Interpreting Article IV, § 8(a) of the Constitution to extend only to bill numbers rather than the substance of legislation would be comically absurd."
  • August 19, 2025: Assembly Speaker Rivas responded to the litigation, saying, "Republicans filed this lawsuit to stop Californians from voting — that’s anti-American and anti-democratic. In this election, Californians can stop Donald Trump’s assault on our state by voting yes. We trust the voters, and we stand with them having the final say."[46]
  • August 20, 2025: The California Supreme Court rejected the petition, stating, "Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8."[47]

Sanchez, et al. v. Weber, et al.

  • August 25, 2025: State Asms. Kathryn Sanchez (R-71) and Tri Ta (R-7), Sens. Suzette Valladares (R-23) and Tony Strickland (R-36), and four individuals (Eric Ching, Mike Ward, Andrew Pandol, and Roger Holland) filed litigation before the California Supreme Court. Petitioners argued the following:[48]
    • Proposition 50 (ACA 8) violated Article XVIII, § 1, which provided for a separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. Petitioners argued that Proposition 50 contains "two provisions that are unrelated to a 'common theme or purpose'": (1) a provision urging Congress to adopt independent redistricting commissions nationwide and (2) a provision authorizing the implementation of the legislature's congressional districts map.
    • AB 604, the district map legislation contingent on voter approval of Proposition 50, violated Article XXI, § 1 and § 2, which authorized the Citizens Redistricting Commission to conduct redistricting in the year following the federal census. The petition stated, "AB 604 is thus invalid because when the Legislature engaged in its redistricting process, as now, the text of the Constitution still limited the authority to engage in the redistricting process to the Commission."
    • AB 604 violated Article IV, § 8(a), which provided that bills cannot be heard or acted upon until 30 days after their introduction.
  • August 25, 2025: Hannah Milgrom, spokesperson for Yes on 50, responded, "Trump’s toadies already got destroyed once in court. Now, they are trying again - to protect Trump’s power grab and prevent the voters from having their say on Prop 50. They will lose."[49]
  • August 27, 2025: The California Supreme Court denied the petition, stating, "The petition for writ of mandate and application for stay are denied."[50]

Jackson v. Weber, et al.

  • August 29, 2025: U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R) of Texas filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas, seeking an injunction on California AB 604, which contained the new congressional district map. He argued the following:[51]
    • According to Rep. Jackson, the California Constitution prohibited the state legislature from redistricting. He said, "By doing so, California’s legislature was not acting as a legitimate 'Legislature' under Article I, Section 4 [of the U.S. Constitution]; it was acting outside the law, attempting to exercise a power that its people had removed from it."
    • He also said the legislation violated Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. He stated, "California’s redistricting scheme, by targeting the Plaintiff, subverts democratic principles and violates the Guarantee Clause. When California ignores its Constitution to effectuate political change that injured Representative Jackson, a Texas congressman, it eliminates checks on its power and manipulates election outcomes, thus straying from a republican form of governance."

Hilton v. Weber, et al.

  • September 4, 2025: Steve Hilton (R), a gubernatorial candidate for 2026, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Central California, seeking an injunction on Proposition 50. He argued the following that the redistricting plan is based on outdated population data from the last census, including wildfire-related displacement, and therefore would create unequal congressional districts and dilute voting power. He also argued that the California Constitution limits redistricting to once per decade.[52]

Background

Creation of Citizens Redistricting Commission

In California, a non-politician commission, called the Citizens Redistricting Commission, has been responsible for congressional and state legislative redistricting since 2011.

The commission was created in 2008, when voters approved Proposition 11, with 50.8% of the vote. Proposition 11 transferred state legislative redistricting from the legislature to the commission; however, Proposition 11 did not address congressional redistricting. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) PAC, the California Dream Team, supported the ballot initiative. Supporters received $16.5 million, including $3.3 million from Schwarzenegger's PAC and $1.4 million from Charles T. Munger, Jr. Opponents received $1.6 million, including $400,000 from AFSCME and $396,439 from the Democratic State Central Committee of California.

In 2010, voters decided on dueling ballot initiatives: Proposition 20 and Proposition 27. Voters approved Proposition 20, transferring congressional redistricting from the legislature to the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Voters rejected Proposition 27, which would have eliminated the Citizens Redistricting Commission and returned state legislative redistricting to the legislature. The PACs that supported Proposition 20 opposed Proposition 27, and vice versa. Supporters of Proposition 20 received $15.2 million, including $12.2 million from Munger and $956,001 from his wife, Charlotte Lowell. Opponents of Proposition 20 received $5.5 million, including $2.0 million from Haim Saban and $1.3 million from AFSCME.

Redistricting in California after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in California after the 2020 census

In 2021, following the decennial census, the 14-member California Citizens Redistricting Commission approved new congressional district boundaries. The commission included five Democrats, five Republicans, and four unaffiliated members. The final vote on the map was unanimous.

Isra Ahmad, an unaffiliated member of the commission who served as chairperson, said, "The maps we created and improved are far from perfect, but they represent the wishes of the people of California to transform the redistricting process from one that used to take place behind closed doors to one that is public and fully transparent." Russell Yee (R), vice-chair of the commission, stated, "All 14 of us wanted fair and equitable maps, and such maps should not be and are not a partisan matter. Fair and equitable maps are essential for free and fair elections and free and fair elections are the heart of American democracy."[53] Commissioner Trena Turner (D) said, "We know that in order to please and honor the desires of some, we’ve disappointed others, and for me that’s been heartbreaking. We are imperfect people, trying to draw, for you, perfect lines for perfect districts. Nevertheless, with our required and given criteria, I am proud of the ultimate product that we’ve created."[54]

Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said the commission "[produced] wildly contorted congressional lines" that "ignore California's communities in a desperate attempt to try to save Nancy Pelosi's majority."[55]

History of redistricting-related ballot measures in California

See also: Redistricting policy ballot measures
California ballot measures addressing redistricting, 1910–2024
Measure Year Type Description Outcome
Proposition 40 2012 Initiative (Referendum) Uphold the redistricting commission's map for the state Senate
Approved
Proposition 20 2010 Initiative (Constitutional) Transfer congressional redistricting from the state Legislature to California Citizens Redistricting Commission
Approved
Proposition 27 2010 Initiative (Constitutional) Eliminate the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, returning state legislative redistricting to the state Legislature
Defeated
Proposition 11 2008 Initiative (Constitutional) Create the California Citizens Redistricting Commission for state legislative redistricting
Approved
Proposition 77 2005 Initiative (Constitutional) Transfer state legislative and congressional redistricting from the state Legislature to a panel of three retired judges
Defeated
Proposition 118 1990 Initiative (Constitutional) Require a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval to approve state legislative and congressional redistricting plans
Defeated
Proposition 119 1990 Initiative (Constitutional) Create the California Citizens Redistricting Commission for state legislative and congressional redistricting plans
Defeated
Proposition 39 1984 Initiative (Constitutional) Create a commission of retired appellate or lower court judges to adopt state legislative and congressional redistricting plans
Defeated
Proposition 10 1982 Initiative (Referendum) Uphold the legislature's map for congressional districts
Defeated
Proposition 11 1982 Initiative (Referendum) Uphold the legislature's map for state Senate districts
Defeated
Proposition 12 1982 Initiative (Referendum) Uphold the legislature's map for state Assembly districts
Defeated
Proposition 14 1982 Initiative (Constitutional) Create a 10-member commission, composed of appointed persons, for state legislative and congressional redistricting
Defeated
Proposition 6 1980 Legislative (Constitutional) Provide that legislative, congressional, and other districts are reasonably equal in population
Approved
Proposition 23 1962 Initiative (Constitutional) Increase size of state Senate, from 40 to 50 seats, and change reapportionment rules for state Senate districts
Defeated
Proposition 15 1960 Initiative (Constitutional) Change state Senate reapportionment rules, including eliminating the maximum limit of one district per county
Defeated
Proposition 13 1948 Initiative (Constitutional) Change state Senate reapportionment rules, including eliminating the maximum limit of one district per county
Defeated
Proposition 18 1942 Legislative (Constitutional) Replace Surveyor General with State Controller on Reapportionment Commission, which was responsible for redistricting when the legislature fails to adopt plans
Approved
Proposition 1 1928 Initiative (Referendum) Uphold the state legislature's redistricting plan for the Assembly and Senate
Approved
Proposition 20 1926 Initiative (Constitutional) Create a reapportionment commission to provide for redistricting when the legislature fails to adopt plans during the first session following a census
Defeated
Proposition 28 1926 Initiative (Constitutional) Change state Senate apportionment from population-based districts to one senator per county and create a reapportionment commission if the Legislature fails to act
Approved

Turnout at special statewide elections in California

Proposition 50 is scheduled for a special statewide election on November 4, 2025, with no other statewide elections on the ballot. From 2000 to 2024, there were four special statewide elections held. Two of these were gubernatorial recall elections (2003 and 2021). In 2003, there were also two ballot measures. The other two special elections were for ballot measures, without other statewide contests, in 2005 and 2009.

In 2005, voters decided eight citizen-initiated ballot measures, including a redistricting ballot measure (Proposition 77) and others related to abortion, education, healthcare, spending limits, and utilities. Turnout was 50.1%.

In 2009, voters decided six ballot measures—four constitutional amendments and two statutes—related to the state budget. Turnout was 28.4%, the lowest between 2000 and 2024 for statewide special and general elections.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to vote in California


See also

2025 ballot measures

View other measures certified for the 2025 ballot across the U.S. and in California.

California ballot measures

Explore California's ballot measure history, including constitutional amendments.

Legislative process

Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 California State Legislature, "Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8," August 18, 2025
  2. ↑ The Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, "The Gavinmander: How We Would Rate the New California Democratic Map if Voters Approve It," August 18, 2025
  3. ↑ Punchbowl News, "What to expect in a very new California map," accessed August 18, 2025
  4. ↑ California Public Radio, "Governor Gavin Newsom says California must counter GOP efforts to redraw congressional maps," July 28, 2025
  5. ↑ Texas State Legislature, "House Bill 4," accessed August 23, 2025
  6. ↑ The Texas Tribune, "Texas Senate approves GOP congressional map, sending plan to Abbott’s desk," August 22, 2025
  7. ↑ Texas Governor, "Re: Unconstitutional Race-Based Congressional Districts, TX-09, TX-18, TX-29 and TX-33," July 7, 2025
  8. ↑ Texas Tribune, "Texas House approves GOP congressional map after two-week delay from Democrats’ walkout," August 21, 2025
  9. ↑ Politico, "Trump on Texas redistricting: ‘We are entitled to 5 more seats’," August 5, 2025
  10. ↑ NPR, "California Democrats unveil their new congressional map to counter Republicans," August 15, 2025
  11. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Republicans say they’ll fight against Newsom’s redistricting effort," August 19, 2025
  12. ↑ The Washington Post, "Texas map would add five safe Republican seats. What it means for the midterms," July 30, 2025
  13. ↑ The Hill, "Jeffries opens door to more Democratic redistricting: ‘Let’s see what comes next’," August 24, 2025
  14. ↑ California State Assembly, "Proposed Congressional Map," accessed August 18, 2025
  15. ↑ Politico, "Can this man draw the Democrats a House majority?" August 15, 2025
  16. ↑ KPBS, "Meet the Sacramento architect behind California’s new proposed congressional maps," September 2, 2025
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 California Secretary of State, "Public Display - Ballot Materials, 2025," accessed September 9, 2025
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  19. ↑ The Election Rigging Response Act, Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee, "Homepage," accessed August 16, 2025
  20. ↑ Protect Voters First, Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable, "Homepage," accessed August 16, 2025
  21. ↑ Stop Sacramento's Power Grab, "Homepage," accessed August 19, 2025
  22. ↑ Cal-Access, "Protect Voters First, Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable," accessed August 15, 2025
  23. ↑ Cal-Access, "Statement of Organization Recipient Committee," August 12, 2025
  24. ↑ Cal-Access, "Statement of Organization Recipient Committee," August 15, 2025
  25. ↑ Common Cause, "California Meets, Texas Fails to Meet Common Cause’s Redistricting Fairness Criteria," August 20, 2025
  26. ↑ League of Women Voters of California, "The League of Women Voters of California will not take a position on Proposition 50," August 27, 2025
  27. ↑ Before re-registering under the current name, the committee was called Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee. From January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025, the PAC received $871,651. These donors are excluded from the table because their contributions were made before the PAC re-registered to support Proposition 50.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 Cal-Access, "Propositions & Ballot Measures," accessed August 16, 2025
  29. ↑ California Fair Political Practices Commission, "Formal Complaint and Request for Investigation Against Right Path California," September 3, 2025
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 The San Francisco Standard, "Newsom accuses ‘dark money’ group of breaking law in redistricting war," September 4, 2025
  31. ↑ Politico, "Citrin Center | Possibility Lab | POLITICO Summer Policy Survey," August 13, 2025
  32. ↑ Texas Tribune, "As Trump looks to net five GOP seats through Texas redistricting, Democrats grasp for response," July 15, 2025
  33. ↑ X, "Gavin Newsom," July 15, 2025
  34. ↑ The Hill, "‘Two can play that game’: Newsom hits Trump push to gain House seats," July 16, 2025
  35. ↑ Politico, "Gavin Newsom floats November special election for his anti-Trump redistricting push," July 31, 2025
  36. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Newsom provides new details about his plan for redistricting fight with Trump," July 31, 2025
  37. ↑ CalMatters, "Newsom wants voters to weigh in on new congressional districts in November," July 31, 2025
  38. ↑ KCRA, "California's Democratic legislative leaders appear ready to follow Newsom's lead on redistricting," August 4, 2025
  39. ↑ The Hill, "Newsom says special election on California redistricting planned for November," August 8, 2025
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Politico, "Newsom again threatens tit-for-tat redistricting," August 11, 2025
  41. ↑ Governor of California, "Governor Newsom launches statewide response to Trump rigging Texas’ elections," August 14, 2025
  42. ↑ KCRA 3, "Maps show how California's redrawn congressional lines could look," August 15, 2025
  43. ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 604," accessed August 18, 2025
  44. ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 280," accessed August 18, 2025
  45. ↑ California Supreme Court, "Senator Tony Strickland, et al. v. Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, et al.," August 18, 2025
  46. ↑ KCRA, "California Republicans ask state Supreme Court to pause Democratic redistricting push," August 19, 2025
  47. ↑ The Hill, "California Supreme Court rejects GOP effort to halt Newsom’s redistricting push," August 20, 2025
  48. ↑ California Supreme Court, "Assemblywoman Kathryn Sanchez, et al. v. Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber and California Legislature," August 25, 2025
  49. ↑ KCRA, "California Republicans file petition for state Supreme Court to block redistricting measure," August 25, 2025
  50. ↑ KCRA, "California Supreme Court denies GOP request to block redistricting proposal," August 27, 2025
  51. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, "Jackson v. Weber, et al.," August 29, 2025
  52. ↑ United States District Court for the Central District of California, "Hilton v. Weber, et al.," September 4, 2025
  53. ↑ ABC 7, "With California losing congressional seat, new map could play big role in who controls Congress," December 28, 2021
  54. ↑ YubaNet, "2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission Delivers Maps to California Secretary of State," December 27, 2021
  55. ↑ Politico, "California’s new congressional map boosts Democrats," Dec. 21, 2021
  56. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
  57. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
  59. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
  60. ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
  61. ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  62. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
  63. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
  64. ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_50,_Use_of_Legislative_Congressional_Redistricting_Map_Amendment_(2025)&oldid=10501286"