No one’s hiding it. Getting voters to approve a new congressional map is a ploy to deny Republicans control of the House and check Trump.
Both sides of the Proposition 50 debate argue that the fate of the country rests on whether California voters on Nov. 4 approve a temporary redrawing of congressional districts that favors Democrats.
On the “yes” side you have not only Gov. Gavin Newsom, but also the Democratic Party rock star, former President Obama, who says in a campaign ad that Republicans started a redistricting war that only California can end by “leveling the playing field.”
“Democracy is on the ballot,” Obama says solemnly.
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who is the biggest name on the “no” campaign has a different point of view. Voting for Proposition 50 puts democracy in danger “by getting rid of the democratic principles of California,” he said during a panel at the University of Southern California last month.
Campaign hype aside, the reality is that Proposition 50 is neither the savior of democracy nor its potential downfall.
For one thing, though three Republican House seats would easily flip Democratic in 2026 under the new map, the fate of the two others seen as vulnerable is less certain. That means there’s no guarantee that the measure’s passage will result in the cancelling out of Texas’ recent gerrymandering that seeks to add five new GOP seats.
And to answer the opposition’s main argument about how this is a power grab: Yes, obviously, it is. That’s the whole point. To grab some power away from the ruling party. No one is hiding that.
But more importantly, it is temporary. Proposition 50’s language says clearly that the district-drawing duty will return to the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission after the next census in 2030. If Democrats wanted to make the change permanent, they would have to return to the voters at some point for permission.
Furthermore, Proposition 50 and other efforts by Democrats to gain more seats in Congress may be rendered meaningless after the 2026 midterm if the U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act next year, as it seems poised to do. It would allow Republican states to remove up to a dozen majority-minority seats that typically vote Democratic, resulting in a structural advantage that could shut out Democrats from House control for a long, long time.
Even so, I voted “yes.” (Or rather, I filled out my mail ballot and will drop it in an official ballot box soon and hope no one sets it on fire.)
This is not an endorsement. I am no longer part of an editorial board, batting around all sides of issues, and even if I were, I don’t think this is an election in which intricate pro-con intellectual arguments hold much sway. It’s a gut-check decision, and you’ve got to do what your heart tells you on this one.
It is an explanation, though. I don’t like how Congress is rubberstamping the Trump administration’s dismantling of democratic institutions, undermining of the 1st Amendment and terrorizing of immigrant communities. I don’t like how Republican members of Congress have been OK with policies that are making Americans poorer and sicker.
Voting “yes” is a tangible way to act on my feelings, even if as a check, it’s a long shot. Protesting is great for showing solidarity, but it isn’t enough to stop Trump from sending troops into U.S. cities, including Los Angeles and, perhaps, San Francisco.
What’s your gut telling you to do?
