2025 California Proposition 50

California Proposition 50, officially known as the Election Rigging Response Act,^[4] is an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of California, which was passed by voters in a special election ballot on November 4, 2025. At the urging of California governor Gavin Newsom, the proposition was put on the ballot by the Democratic-controlled California State Legislature. Approved by 64.4% of voters, the proposition's purpose was to redraw the state's congressional districts, replacing the ones drawn by the bipartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission during the earlier 2020 redistricting cycle. The new districts will be used for the 2026 United States House of Representatives elections through the 2030 elections.^[5] Following the 2030 census, congressional redistricting authority will return to the independent commission under the normal decennial process.

The map defined in Proposition 50 is a Democratic gerrymander intended to offset the gerrymander by Texas Republicans, both of which are part of the broader 2025–2026 United States redistricting effort. It redraws several congressional districts to incorporate larger shares of urban and suburban Democratic voters, increasing Democratic registration advantages in competitive districts and converting several Republican-leaning seats into Democratic-leaning ones.^[6] Republicans have responded to Proposition 50 with legislation, their own propositions, and litigation.

Republicans challenged the proposition in court both before the election, as well as after it was passed by the voters, but their legal efforts were exhausted when the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the appeal.

In June 2025, Republican lawmakers in Texas first proposed gerrymandering the state's congressional district lines to favor Republicans.^[7] In July, Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, called a special session of the Texas Legislature to discuss redistricting.^[8] Texas Democrats in the state House of Representatives fled the state in an effort to break quorum and stall the redistricting effort.^[9]

Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, first proposed that California could gerrymander its own congressional district maps to favor Democrats in an effort to offset potential gains from Texas's gerrymandering.^[10] The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is an independent bipartisan body that currently handles redistricting in the state. The commission was first established in 2008 by Proposition 11 with a mandate for drawing districts for the State Legislature and the Board of Equalization.

With the passage of Proposition 20, the commission's power was expanded in 2010 to also draw congressional districts. Newsom proposed that a special election be called to temporarily pause the commission and return redistricting power to the California Legislature until the end of the decade. Because both Propositions 11 and 20 were voter-approved amendments to the state constitution, any such changes to the redistricting power would also require a voter-approved constitutional amendment.^[11]

On August 11, 2025, Newsom sent a letter to Donald Trump, stating that California would pause any mid-decade redistricting effort if other states called off their efforts.^[12] Two days later, Newsom announced that the deadline had passed and he would move forward with his own redistricting effort.^[13]

The new map was drawn by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell,^[14] and formally submitted to the legislature by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.^[15] Proponents of the maps argued that the map was more compact than the previous map, with fewer city and county splits, and with the majority of districts changed by less than 10%,^[15] although certain cities, such as Lodi, will be newly split.^[16] Non-partisan observers saw it as a gerrymandering; for example, analyst Nathaniel Rakich described the maps as an "aggressive Democratic gerrymander" that will more than double the bias in the current map as a result of simultaneously cracking Republican districts and unpacking extremely Democratic districts through absorbing more-Republican areas.^[17]

It targets five seats currently held by Republicans:^[18][19][20]

• CA-01 (James Gallagher): The district loses Republican-leaning metropolitan areas in the Sacramento Valley (Redding area, Yuba–Sutter area), while gaining Democratic-leaning areas around Santa Rosa. The northern portions will join areas of the North Coast and Marin County in the Democratic-leaning 2nd district, while the southern portions will join North Bay communities and Davis in the 4th district.
• CA-03 (Kevin Kiley): The district will lose many Republican-leaning suburbs and exurbs of Sacramento in Placer County (Roseville, Lincoln), while gaining Democratic-leaning areas from Sacramento proper and its inner suburbs. The Republican-leaning areas will be moved into the 4th district and the 6th district.
• CA-22 (David Valadao): The district will gain Democratic-leaning areas in Fresno, while losing some Republican-leaning areas of Hanford, Tulare and Porterville.
• CA-41 (Ken Calvert): The old district, currently based in Riverside County, will effectively be split up among adjacent districts, with the new 41st district being based in Democratic-leaning areas of eastern Los Angeles County and northern Orange County. Much of its Republican core will be moved into the 40th district.
• CA-48 (Darrell Issa): The district will lose Republican-leaning areas in the Temecula Valley and most of east San Diego County, while gaining Democratic-leaning cities in the Coachella Valley and north San Diego County such as Palm Springs, Vista and San Marcos. The Republican-leaning areas will then be split among the strongly Democratic San Diego-based districts.

The new map will also decrease the competitiveness of several swing districts held by Democrats:^[19]

• CA-09 (Josh Harder): The district gains more East Bay cities. Based on votes cast in the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic advantage will increase by 13.1 percentage points.
• CA-13 (Adam Gray): The district takes in a large portion of strongly Democratic areas in Stockton, while losing more conservative areas in Fresno County. As a result, the Republican advantage will decrease by 5.5 percentage points, effectively being eliminated.
• CA-21 (Jim Costa): The district gains more areas of Fresno proper and Clovis, and loses Republican-leaning towns such as Exeter. The Democratic advantage will increase by 2.2 percentage points.
• CA-27 (George T. Whitesides): The district gains areas Democratic-leaning areas in the San Fernando Valley while losing Republican-leaning areas in the Antelope Valley. The Democratic advantage increases by 5.5 percentage points.
• CA-45 (Derek Tran): The district gains parts of cities such as Norwalk and Santa Ana, while losing cities such as Brea and Placentia. The Democratic advantage will increase from 1.5 to 4 percentage points.
• CA-47 (Dave Min): The district gains Democratic-leaning cities such as Tustin and Aliso Viejo and loses conservative cities such as Huntington Beach and Newport Beach The Democratic advantage will increase from 4 to 10 percentage points.
• CA-49 (Mike Levin): The district takes in parts of northern San Diego and loses South Orange County cities such as Dana Point which lean Republican. The Democratic advantage will increase by 4 percentage points.

As a result of cracking Republican votes, many districts will become less Democratic-leaning. In six districts, the Democratic voter registration advantage will decrease by a margin of more than 10 percentage points:^[19]

• CA-02 (Jared Huffman): −20.9%
• CA-04 (Mike Thompson): −17%
• CA-07 (Doris Matsui): −17.1%
• CA-08 (John Garamendi): −10.1%
• CA-42 (Robert Garcia): −19.5%
• CA-50 (Scott Peters): −11.6%

However, all six districts will still favor the Democrats.

The new map is expected to help one Republican who represents a swing district:

• Young Kim (CA-40). The district will lose many cities in Orange County, while gaining many Republican-leaning areas of Riverside County from the current 41st and 48th districts. As a result, the Republican advantage will increase by 9.7 percentage points, effectively being repurposed into a Republican pack.^[19]

In 23 districts (out of 52), the change will be 2 percentage points or less.^[19]

In terms of the impact of the new maps on protected groups under the federal Voting Rights Act, a study from Caltech and Cal Poly Pomona found that the number of Latino majority districts will stay the same and two additional districts where Latinos make up 30–50% of the citizen voting age population will be added.^[21][22] The UCLA Asian American Studies Center found that the number of Asian American/Pacific Islander plurality districts will increase from three to five.^[23]

Three actions were necessary to place Proposition 50 on the ballot:^[24][25]

1. Pass Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, which is the amendment submitted for approval to California voters to redistrict the state
2. Pass Senate Bill 280 to call the election, assign the proposition number, and prohibit any candidate from using the title "incumbent" in the June 2026 congressional election should the measure pass
3. Pass Assembly Bill 604 to assign each census block within the counties to a congressional district.

SB 280 was introduced on August 18,^[a] and a legislative vote occurred in both chambers on August 21. A two-thirds supermajority was needed to place the measure on the ballot.^[28][29] The California State Assembly surpassed the 54 votes needed for a supermajority by passing the bill on a 57 to 20 vote.^[b] Hours later, the California State Senate surpassed the 27 votes needed for a supermajority by approving the bill on a 30 to 8 vote.^[31][c] Governor Newsom signed it into law later in the day.^[32] ACA 8 also passed by that same vote tally, although as a legislative constitutional amendment it did not need the governor's signature.^[33] ACA 8 was chaptered by the Secretary of State on August 21, 2025, at Resolution Chapter 156, Statues of 2025.^[33] AB 604, which set the boundaries of the districts, passed 56 to 20 in the Assembly and 30 to 9 in the Senate.^[34][d][e]

California State Assembly minority leader James Gallagher, along with a few other Republican cosponsors, introduced a joint resolution to split California into two states.^[37][38]

Various attempts were made to put propositions on the 2026 general election ballot for amendments to the state's constitution in response to Proposition 50. To put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot requires gathering signatures of voters, with the minimum number set at 8% of the number of valid votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election (874,641 signatures). The signatures must be collected within 180 days, but turned in no later than 131 days before election day (June 25, 2026).^[39]

• On October 22, 2025, the Secretary of State authorized Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio to begin gathering signatures for a proposed proposition of a constitutional amendment to target state lawmakers who supported the proposition. Titled "Penalize Politicians Who Manipulate Their Own Districts Initiative,"^[40] DeMaio's proposal would bar any state lawmaker who voted in favor of Proposition 50 from running for office for ten years.^[41] DeMaio's deadline to gather the 874,641 signatures needed to place the proposition on the ballot is April 20, 2026.^[41]
• The day after the Proposition 50 passed, Republican activist and attorney James V. Lacy filed paperwork for a constitutional amendment to undo Proposition 50 and revert for the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections to the district lines that were drawn in 2021 by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.^[42]

Four California state legislators (state senators Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares and assemblymembers Tri Ta and Kate Sanchez) filed a lawsuit with the California Supreme Court asking the court to block the vote in the State Legislature on the ground that state law required a 30-day waiting period before voting on the bill. On August 20, the California Supreme Court rejected the motion by the four legislators, paving the way for a vote the following day.^[43] On August 25, after the bill became law, the same four legislators sued again in the state Supreme Court. In their emergency lawsuit, the legislators claim that the proposition is a violation of citizens' rights to have the California redistricting commission draw congressional districts. The California Republican Party announced that it was backing the plaintiffs, who were represented by a law firm founded by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.^[44] The California Supreme Court also rejected the second lawsuit.^[45]

On September 4, political advisor Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate in the 2026 California gubernatorial election, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asking them to stop Proposition 50, arguing that the proposition did not account for changes in the state's population since the 2020 Census and would hence violate the "one-person, one vote". On September 25, Hilton asked for an injunction with the court, after Governor Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber failed to respond to the suit within 21 days, as typically required by federal law. An official within the office of Governor Newsom told the Fresno ABC affiliate KFSN-TV that they did not respond because they were not properly served.^[46] On October 3, Hilton's preliminary injunction was filed with the district court.^[47] On October 24, Judge Kenly Kato denied the petition to enjoin the proposition, stating that the lawsuit could continue after the election if the proposition passes.^[48]

On September 5, U.S. Representative Ronny Jackson (R-TX) sued both Newsom and Weber in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the legislation risked "diluting Plaintiff's legislative power and the voice of Texas voters".^[49] A petition for a temporary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed on October 23 by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk for inability to demonstrate a cognizable injury.^[50][51] A second lawsuit filed by Jackson, which only differed from the prior suit with the addition of California U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R) as a co-plaintiff, was dismissed by Kacsmaryk on October 31 on the same grounds.^[52]

On August 25, the day that the four Republican state legislators filed their second lawsuit, President Trump announced that he will ask the United States Justice Department to sue in federal court to block Proposition 50. Newsom responded in a tweet, "BRING IT".^[53]

The day after Proposition 50 passed, the California Republican Party, represented by Harmeet Dhillon, filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the new map, alleging that it favored Hispanic voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.^[54][55][56] Eighteen individuals joined the California Republican Party as plaintiffs in the case including Assemblymember David Tangipa, Walnut city councilmember Eric Ching, former San Benito County supervisor Peter Hernandez, and McFarland mayor Saul Ayon.^[57][58] On November 13 the United States Department of Justice intervened as a plaintiff, with United States Attorney General Pam Bondi characterizing Proposition 50 as "a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process".^[59][60][61]

Governor Newsom, who is a defendant in the lawsuit, responded to the lawsuit through a spokesperson saying that "these losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court."^[61]

The lawsuit was heard by a three judge panel in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The members of the panel included Josephine Staton, an Obama appointee, Wesley Hsu, a Biden appointee, and Kenneth K. Lee, a Trump appointee. Deliberations began December 15 and on January 14, 2026, two of the three judges on the panel, Staton and Hsu, voted to uphold the passed map, and Lee dissenting. Lee based his decision on statements made by Paul Mitchell, a redistricting expert who drew up the maps, who said that District #13 was drawn up with race being a predominant factor. Staton and Hsu called the focus on District #13 (out of 52 districts) a strawman argument.^[62][63]

Immediately after the ruling was announced, the California Republican Party announced that it will seek an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court of the United States to block implementation of the new maps.^[63] The defendants, in their brief to the Supreme Court, cited the Supreme Court's order in the 2025 Texas redistricting case which explicitly calls out the redistricting proposed by Proposition 50 as constitutional, and they also cited Bondi's characterization of Proposition 50 as a "power grab".^[64] On February 4, the Supreme Court denied the appeal without comment or dissent.^[65][66][67]

On December 4, 2025, the Virginia-based conservative legal group called Public Interest Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking to block the implementation of Proposition 50. In their lawsuit, the group alleges that Proposition 50 violates the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as the Voting Rights Act.^[68]

The Public Interest Legal Foundation also filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case against Proposition 50 in which the California Republican Party was the plaintiff (see subsection above).^[69]

The initial estimated cost for the special election was $282 million, of which $251 million would be incurred by the counties to conduct the election and reimbursable by the state.^[70]

Vote by mail ballots were sent out to all 23 million California voters, with the first ballots being returned on October 6. By October 24, 18% of the ballots mailed out (about 4 million) were already returned.^[71] Although the California Republican Party was urging Republican voters to mail their ballots back as soon as possible, on October 26 Donald Trump urged voters not to mail their ballots back, but to vote in person instead.^[72]

The initial version of the voter information guide contained a typographical error in the labeling of one of the congressional districts. Eight million copies of the voter guide had already been sent out before the error was discovered. Voters who had received the erroneous voter guide received a postcard with a correction. The rest of the voters received a revised version of the voter guide. Secretary of State Shirley Weber blamed the Legislative Analyst's Office for the error, and said that the office would bear the estimated $3 to $4 million for the additional costs incurred as a result of the error.^[73]

In mid-October, voters in Sacramento County reported that the return envelopes they received along with their mail-in ballots could reveal their marked choices through a small hole in the envelope if the ballot is folded such that the hole is lined up with the markings on the ballot. County election officials confirmed the reports and explained that the small holes had various purposes, chief among them to be able to see whether the return envelope contains the ballot. To avoid exposing the marked choices on the ballot, county election officials recommended that voters fold their ballot with the markings inside the fold.^[74]

Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for the 2026 gubernatorial election who had previously filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of the special election, demanded the election be cancelled due to the flawed design of the envelopes in Sacramento County. Hilton described the issue as "another example of the corruption and incompetence rigging California's elections".^[75]

In response to a request by Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, the Trump administration announced on October 24 that the Department of Justice would deploy election monitors to polling sites in California. Rankin's request cited "reports of irregularities" which she feared would "undermine either the willingness of voters to participate in the election or their confidence in the announced results of the election". California Secretary of State Shirley Weber criticized the move as voter intimidation "masquerading as oversight".^[76][f]

Another dispute came up when Governor Newsom raised the possibility that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) might raid polling places as an intimidation tactic. ICE officials responded that they were "not planning operations targeting polling locations", but would not be deterred from going to a polling place if "a dangerous criminal alien" were to approach a polling center.^[77]

In 2026, the Riverside Election Integrity Team (a citizen's watchdog election group) published their findings of the 2025 election results in Riverside County. The group alleged a nearly 46,000 vote discrepancy between counted and received ballots in the election. The group found that handwritten logs showed about 611,000 votes cast in Riverside County during the election, while a machine count showed over 657,000 counted votes.^[78] Following their investigation, the group presented their findings to the Moreno Valley sheriff's station.^[79] The watchdog investigation was completed with the help of Shasta County's Registrar of Voters, Clint Curtis.^[80]

In a response, Riverside County's Registrar of Voters, Art Tinoco, denied the allegations, claiming the actual vote discrepancy was 103.^[79] Tinoco argued the handwritten logs count were inaccurate due to human error.^[78] Following this, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department began an investigation into the watchdog group's claims. Riverside County is cooperating with the investigation.^[79]

In March 2026, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized over 656,000 ballots to recount as a part of the department's investigation. The sheriff's department seized the ballots after obtaining warrants from county Superior Court Judge Jay Kiel. Bianco obtained a total of three judicial warrants related to the investigation, the first on February 9 and the other two in March.^[81] Bianco has distanced himself from the investigation, due to his candidacy in the 2026 gubernatorial election.^[82] According to Bianco, Judge Kiel has ordered that a "special master" be appointed to oversee the ballot recount; the Riverside County Sheriff's Office is currently working alongside the court to select an appointee.^[83]

The ballot seizure led to backlash from state Democrats; California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an emergency petition in the California Courts of Appeal, in a bid to halt the investigation. Bonta accused Bianco of "openly defying the Attorney General's lawful directives".^[79] The court denied Bonta's request, noting that his petition was filed in the wrong court,^[78] and allowed the sheriff's department to proceed with the investigation.^[82] Bianco subsequently accused Bonta of corruption, saying "Why would you interfere and obstruct an investigation instead of assist? What are you afraid of?"^[79]

Following this, Bonta filed a second petition, this time in the Riverside County Superior Court. A hearing for the second petition was then set for March 30,^[78] before being postponed to April 2.^[81] Separately, the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed their own legal challenge, asking the California Supreme Court to halt the fraud investigation.^[78]

On March 29, 2026, Bianco announced that the investigation would be placed on hold for the time being, "because of the politically motivated lawsuits and court filings".^[81] On April 9, 2026, the California Supreme Court halted the investigation. Bianco stated that he was "technically...very happy" with the ruling, adding "we’ll just continue fighting for this for you, and we’ll make sure that an investigation...is completed and not swept under the rug, as our attorney general would like to happen."^[84]

Support for the measure was expected to be highly partisan, with supporters of the measure likely being members of the Democratic Party, while those in opposition were expected to be members of the Republican Party.^[85]

The ballot measure was proposed by Governor Newsom, who emerged as its most vocal champion.^[86][6] Other prominent supporters include former President Barack Obama,^[87] former Vice President Kamala Harris,^[88] U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff,^[89] and the California AFL-CIO.^[90] Newsom, Padilla, and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi signed the ballot argument in favor.^[91]

Within a month after the special election was called, Newsom's political action committee (PAC) supporting the proposition raised $70 million, with $10 million coming from George Soros and his family.^[92] Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared in an ad produced by the PAC, speaking in support of the proposition and telling Californians that it "levels the playing field" and "gives power back to the people".^[93] The Newsom-led ballot committee announced on October 28 that it reached its fundraising goals and took the unusual step of stopping its fundraising activities. In the announcement, the committee noted that $38 million of the amount raised came from 1.2 million supporters.^[94]

A couple of other committees also spent money promoting the proposition. One, by the House Majority PAC, a Super PAC of House Democrats spent $10 million (as of Mid-October) and worked closely with Newsom's committee. The other committee, headed by liberal activist Tom Steyer, spent $12 million (as of mid-October) but did not coordinate with Newsom's committee. While some Democrats expressed chagrin over Steyer's efforts, others expressed the opinion that his work is "more likely to help than harm".^[95]

Combined spending to support the proposition was $138 million.^[96] The liberal think tank Center for American Progress, which is normally in favor of independent redistricting commissions, stated that redistricting commissions should be put on hold until Congress "establishes federal standards for redistricting that all states must abide by".^[97]

Two main committees were formed in opposition to the proposition: one named "Stop Sacramento's Power Grab", backed by former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, and the other named "Protect Voters First", backed by Charles Munger Jr.^[98] Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's most recent Republican to have served as governor, backed Munger Jr.'s efforts, but did not formally join the latter's campaign committee,^[99] and was later called "cowardly" by Republican officials for not being a more active opponent.^[96] McCarthy announced that he planned on raising $100 million for his committee, with immediate past chair of the California Republican Party, Jessica Millan Patterson, tapped to lead McCarthy's committee.^[100] However, as of two weeks prior to the election, McCarthy had only raised $11.4 million of that amount.^[101]

Both Schwarzenegger and Munger played a significant role in bringing about the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, with Munger having spent $12 million on the proposition to create the commission.^{[102][103][104]} Munger donated $10 million to start his committee, and ultimately contributed $32 million in opposition, although his committee ceased advertising weeks prior to the election.^[96] Both committees distanced themselves from Donald Trump, and Trump did not make any comments about the proposition prior to election day.^[96] Ultimately, $58 million was raised in opposition among both committees.^[96]

Democratic State Assembly member Jasmeet Bains, who is running against incumbent Republican Congressman David Valadao in 2026, also came out in opposition to the proposition.^[105]

Common Cause issued a statement that it "will not pre-emptively oppose mid-decade redistricting in California".^[106] As a result, multiple advisory board members resigned.^[107]

The League of Women Voters of California, a leading proponent of Proposition 20 in 2010, had initially issued a statement opposing the redistricting,^[108] but changed its position to neutral after the State Legislature voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot.^[109] The Charles Munger Jr.-formed committee used quotes from the original opposition in mailers that it sent out, without mentioning that the league had dropped its opposition.^[110]

• Of the 24 counties where over 100,000 ballots were cast, all but three voted for the proposition
  • The proposition won in the top 15 counties with the highest number of ballots cast
• Of the 34 counties where less than 100,000 ballots were cast, all but ten voted against the proposition
  • The proposition lost in all but two of the bottom fourteen counties with the lowest number of ballots cast

Of the 540 cities listed below, the "Yes" side won in 404 of them (75%), and "No" side won the remaining 136 (25%)