For Non-Partisan California Voters, Prop 50 is a Questionable Proposition

For partisan Democrats and Republicans, deciding how to vote on Proposition 50 is simple, since it is likely to shift five House seats into the Democratic column in what promises to be a closely fought 2026 Congressional election. But for decline-to-state and third-party voters, as well as less passionate major party registrants, the choice will revolve around whether Prop 50 promotes good government. And, on this score, the measure fails badly.

Prop 50’s language calls for “the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.” But this rhetoric is meaningless. It requires no action from the California legislature, while calling on Congress to do something that California elected officials are themselves unwilling to do.

A key justification for independent redistricting commissions like the one California now has is that they prevent elected officials from choosing their voters rather than the other way around. Allowing potential candidates to participate in the line drawing exercise creates a conflict of interest. And this is precisely the kind of conflict Proposition 50 creates.

In the Bay Area’s northern suburbs, a powerful State Senator, Mike McGuire will be termed out in 2026. A logical next step would be for him to run for Congress, but that would involve running against the Democratic incumbent, Jared Huffman, whose Second District now includes McGuire’s community. But by helping to place Proposition 50 on the ballot, McGuire has created a new opportunity for himself. If Proposition 50 passes, his area would be in a district represented by Republican Doug LaMalfa. This newly gerrymandered First District would have a Democratic majority making it a likely pickup for McGuire.

Prop 50’s route to the ballot was also characterized by poor practices. For example, standard procedure in the California state legislature requires substantial waiting periods between the time a new piece of legislation is filed, approved by committees, and brought to the floor. Proponents, who only had four days to pass Prop 50 enabling legislation, evaded these waiting periods which are intended to allow careful consideration as legislation advances. Rather than file new bills and wait the required 31 days for a committee hearing, they instead rewrote existing bills using a procedure called “gut and amend”.

During the rushed legislative process, questions were asked about the origins of the new maps that will be placed in front of voters. We now know that the mapping firm, Redistricting Partners LLC, was hired and paid by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. While the DCCC might argue that this is good for taxpayers because it covered the estimated $350,000 cost of producing the gerrymandered maps, it is alarming that the mapping work was done without state oversight, which necessarily comes with greater public input.

Although taxpayers saved the cost of mapmaking, we are facing considerable expenses for other aspects of the Prop 50 process. The state agreed to cover County election administration costs of up to $252 million for a previously unscheduled special election. It will also cover costs incurred by the Secretary of State to perform various functions including compiling the voter guide. The total SOS cost had been estimated at $31 million. But, more recently, we learned that the hastily compiled voter guide contained a serious typo (one district was incorrectly labeled on the map on page 11). To offset the mistake, SOS will have to send voters a postcard at an incremental cost of several million dollars. Finally, if Prop 50 passes, County election departments will have to make additional alterations in preparations for the 2026 Congressional elections, at a cost of a few million more dollars according to the Legislative Analyst.

It is fair to say that the $300 million being spent on this exercise is a small percentage of the state’s budget. But, at a time of fiscal constraints when both spending cuts and tax increases have been under active consideration, every little bit hurts. It is especially notable that the state could not find funds to implement the very popular Proposition 36 crime fighting package, yet it can somehow dig deep to pay for a partisan ballot measure.

Proposition 50 advocates emphasize the temporary nature of their gerrymandering plan. If voters approve it, the new politically determined maps will be used for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections. Then, in 2031, the independent commission will once again take over and produce depoliticized boundaries for the next five elections. But there is nothing to stop Democrats from coming back to voters with another gerrymandered map in 2031, when the argument would be that it is too dangerous to let Republicans regain the five seats lost in 2026. Once voters have been convinced that GOP candidates are authoritarian bogeymen, a return to electoral business as usual will be hard to imagine.

Finally, Proposition 50 and the rhetoric surrounding it distracts us from the many problems California faces that can be solved at the state and local level. While we are fortunate to have great weather, elite educational institutions, and profitable industries generating enormous wealth, our state fails to deliver a high quality of life to many of our neighbors who deal with the impacts of crime, drug abuse, substandard public services, and the high cost of living. We should be debating and rectifying the policy errors that have created this situation rather than arguing over lines on a map that need not be changed for another six years.

Marc Joffe, a registered Libertarian. is a Visiting Fellow at California Policy Center and President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.