Do two wrongs make a right? Understanding perspectives on Proposition 50

By Staff Writers Veer Mahajan, Finn McCarthy, Warren Su, & Matthew Zhang

In the election on November 4, CA voters faced one major decision: Proposition 50. This proposition, ultimately passed by more than 25 percentage points, temporarily replaces the existing district lines with redrawn lines from the State Legislature. The new configuration could potentially add five Democratic seats to CA’s map and boost the number of blue districts in the House of Representatives.

In response to a rare mid-decade redistricting in Texas intended to give TX Republicans an additional five seats in the House, CA Governor Gavin Newsom introduced Prop. 50, otherwise known as the “Election Rigging Response Act.” This act temporarily gerrymanders CA until the 2031 redistricting cycle in an attempt to offset the effects of TX gerrymandering. By replacing the congressional lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) with a map drawn by the legislature, Prop. 50 aims to prevent the Republican Party from attempting to rig the election to maintain control of the House. 

Supporters of Prop. 50 include Newsom, the CA Democratic Party, and a multitude of progressive, labor, and left-aligned political groups. Former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and other prominent Democratic leaders have appeared in pro-Prop. 50 advertisements and supported it online. These campaigns have seen massive success and raised more than $100 million. Opposition to Prop. 50 includes members of the CRC, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, and primarily agricultural-centered groups. The opposition has raised $42 million, about half as much as interests in favor of Prop. 50.

Pro

With more than 60% of voters voting “yes” on Prop. 50, it is clear that Californians have embraced redistricting. Prop. 50 isn’t just about Californian districts; it’s about doing what’s right for the American people. Allowing Republican states to gerrymander and gain House seats sets a dangerous precedent: that gerrymandering will be met without consequences. If CA does not level the playing field using new Democratic-partisan districts, the House will be unfairly stolen from the people. 

What once was just an issue between TX and CA has quickly spiraled into one of national concern. Besides TX, three other red states have already enacted gerrymandered maps, increasing Republican seats. This not only nullifies Democratic voices in these states but also shows Republicans’ clear intention to gain as many House seats as possible. According to Silver Bulletin, a polling analyst, just under 55% of Americans disapprove of President Donald Trump’s second term, while less than 43% approve of it. Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly shown defiance to Congress and the federal judiciary by enacting tariffs without approval and sending the National Guard to cities. With Trump’s low approval ratings and his abuse of power, it is obvious why the Republicans are panicking and resorting to partisan redistricting — if they cannot gain control of the House, the Democratic majority will be able to check his authority.  In such cases, gerrymandering is necessary to protect the integrity of elections.

CA’s legislature understands that gerrymandering is unfair, which is why, unlike TX, CA’s Prop. 50 left the choice to redistrict to the people. This meant that the citizens would have the choice whether to gerrymander, not the legislature. The four red states that have already redistricted are undermining voting equality, as all of their maps were decided on by the government, not by the people’s votes. Despite the proposition being gerrymandering itself, the goal is not to promote partisan redistricting; rather, it is to take the extreme measures needed to stop multi-state election rigging. As CA State Senator Jerry McNerney said, “The president and the Texas Republicans are rigging the election … it is our duty to fight fire with fire.”

Con

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind,” and an example of this better than CA’s retaliation is hard to find. TX’s gerrymandering does not mean CA should react in kind. Prop. 50 only further polarizes an already divided nation, exchanging years of trust and credibility for just a few temporary seats in Congress. Not only is this move clearly politically motivated, it strips safeguards for election fairness and community compactness. Prop. 50 affects farmers assigned to urban districts, where representatives may prioritize transportation and urban matters, neglecting farmers. While this blatant power grab is slated to go out of effect by the 2030 census, when redistricting powers will return to the CRC, the effects will last much longer. CA’s districts are already unfair — despite winning only 60% of the state vote in 2024, Democrats won 82% of House seats. Prop. 50 amplifies this disparity, creating an imbalance that costs Democrats their credibility. 

While there is merit to the idea of retaliating against TX’s action with an equal and opposite reaction, politics is rarely so simple. “The side that’s being turned into the minority would want to fight back and … go further and further to their respective political beliefs to counter [the other side],” Senior Rohan Pardeshi said. CA exists in no vacuum; as the most populous state in the US, any major changes that occur within it — particularly those that have been so widely publicized, with hundreds of millions of dollars on advertisements — will see a national response. This move may backfire and can rile up opposing groups, costing each dearly, both in resources and credibility.

With a Cook Political Report finding that even 56% of “yes” voters do not support politicians drawing districts, Prop. 50’s support is more political than moral in motivation. “I think it’s just another political strategy … rather than a genuine effort to serve the people’s interests,” Junior Shreshta Parampalli said. The proposition takes apart the careful work the CRC has already done. Instead of thoughtful districting, politicians pushed out a crude proposal in just a week, initiating a special election that cost taxpayers $200 million and causing outrage between groups. Lacking concern for citizens, Prop. 50 threatens the very people it claims to protect.

Call to Action 

With the nuance intertwined with modern politics, it is more important now than ever to prioritize independent research. So as to not be so easily swayed, personal investigation on policies and evidence is paramount. While there is no legal precedent over the legality of partisan redistricting, the practice is indubitably corrupt. The question of whether gerrymandering is righteous when combating other gerrymandering has not been definitively answered, which is why learning to identify such acts and preventing them go far in protecting the voice of the people. Though Prop. 50 has been passed, the conversations it created should not pass. In a field as complex as politics, individual thinking is required to truly make a change. Through judgment made on various sources, even those partisan, there must only be one direction politics goes: forward.