fauxklore

It’s that time again. Here in California we normally don’t have statewide elections in odd years, but this year is special. We do have an election, with one Proposition on the ballot. This means there is no signature battle driving people to the ballot box, so it is even more important to get out the vote. Sample ballots have been mailed; the ballot guide has been mailed, and the actual ballots were received a day or so ago. Now, every election, I do a detailed ballot analysis of my sample ballot. This is where I examine each candidate or issue and share my conclusions, and invite you to convince me to vote for the other jerk or the other way. Fasten your seatbelts.

Here’s the issue that’s on the ballot:

• Proposition 50:  Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps in Response to Texas’ Partisan Redistricting. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

According to the legislative analyst, this proposition does two things:

• Use Legislatively Drawn Congressional District Maps Until After the Next Census. Proposition 50 replaces California’s current congressional district maps with new, legislatively drawn maps. (The total number of districts would not change.) Proposition 50’s maps must follow federal law, but they are not required to follow the state requirements placed on the Commission. The state would use Proposition 50’s maps for congressional elections starting in 2026. The state would use these maps until the Commission draws new district maps, following the 2030 U.S. Census.
• National Congressional Redistricting: Call for Change in Federal Law. Proposition 50 asks the U.S. Congress to change federal law and propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require redistricting be done by “fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.” Proposition 50 expresses voter support for this idea, but does not change federal law or require any particular action of Congress or the California Legislature.

Let’s start the analysis folks:

In an ideal world: Congressional boundaries would be drawn by independent commissions putting like interests together, either ignoring party or making districts politically even. They would overall make the makeup of the districts representative of the state overall in terms of politics, gender, race, etc., so that the state’s congressional delegation looked like the state. They would eschew gerrymandering, where districts are drawn to favor particular candidates or political parties. A few states, such as California, enacted laws to do this.

In an ideal world: Drawing of congressional districts would occur ONCE after each 10 year census, so that battles in the districts can reflect changes in political and district makeup, and folks that don’t like their congresscritters could vote them out, and vote new ones in.

But we live in Trump’s world right now, and Trump doesn’t like to lose. He’s made clear that he will do whatever it takes to ensure he wins, his followers win, and he stays in power, and that no one investigates his behavior. He’s file lawsuits. He’ll attempt to tamper and interfere in elections, as he did in George in 2020 when he asked them to find votes. He’ll rig the election rules to make it harder for those in the other party — and those he doesn’t like — to vote.

This year, he’s trying to protect himself by Gerrymandering. He specifically asked a number of states to redraw their congressional maps to increase the likelihood that more Republicans get elected to Congress, ensuring he has a majority there and is safe from impeachment and investigations. In response, states like Texas and Missouri did, increasing the likelihood of there being more Republicans and less Democrats, despite how the actual demographics might be.

In response, California — not wanting to dilute its power and Democrat majority in Congress, as California is a Blue state — created this proposal. It temporarily sets aside the results of the independent commission for this 10 year cycle, and redraws lines in response to restore the balance in Congress. It also asks Congress to create independent redistricting commissions. I wish it had gone further to ask for an amendment that restricted redistricting to once every census cycle, but you can’t get everything.

Let’s follow the money.

Who is primarily funding the “No” side. First, the California Republican Party. That’s understandable. Those ads with Arnold? Those are coming from a coalition primarily funded by Charles Munger. Munger is an anti-choice billionaire. A strong Republican.  According to Politico, Munger isn’t MAGA. But he is strongly Republican, and presumably aligned with Republican Values and keeping Republicans in power. Reform California is also against it, and this is a clearly MAGA group, from what I’ve seen them trying to do in the legislature.

Who is in favor? The California Democratic Party. Again, not a surprise. Courage California (where you can order a yard sign). A very large coalition, including major Democrats and Democratic organizations.

So what are my thoughts? In an ideal world, we would have fair elections. We would make it easy for citizens to register and vote, and to vote securely by mail. We wouldn’t put roadblocks in the way of registration (such as requiring certified birth certificates, passports, proof of marital name changes, or long trips to get those documents). We would have independent commissions drawing boundaries once every 10 years, and there would be no Gerrymandering.

But we live in Trump’s world, and the only way to remove Trump from office (barring natural causes), or at least hold him accountable, is through the ballot box. And for that, we need fair and balanced districting. Trump has convinced some states to put their thumbs on the scale of that balance in order to tip the scales in favor of the MAGA Republicans, regardless of the ballot box. So, California must, once again, step up and do its part to protect the nation. We did it with air emission standards. We did it with CEQA. We did it with fuel economy. We’ll do it again by offsetting the Yellow Thumb of Texas, and by Showing Missouri that their attempts to cowtow to Trump are for naught.

I guess you know my position now: YES ON 50.

I guess I should go order my yard sign…. too bad I don’t live in El Dorado County.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Nov 2025 General Election Ballot Analysis: Proposition 50 by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.