Letters to the Editor: Prop. 50 is a ‘temporary fix’ for the House of Representatives’ bigger issue

To the editor: Columnist George Skelton is right that Proposition 50 is about raw power: who draws the lines and who benefits from them (“Forget the high-road jibber-jabber. Prop. 50 is about who controls Congress,” Oct. 6). But he misses the deeper truth. As long as the House of Representatives remains frozen at 435 seats — a cap imposed in 1911 when America was less than one-third its current size — every redistricting fight will be a blood sport.

When each district contains an average of 765,000 people, the map becomes a weapon. Gerrymandering matters precisely because districts are so enormous and scarce. Proposition 50 would just shift the knife from one party’s hand to the other.

There is a better path. The Constitution initially set the ratio at one representative per 30,000 people. If Congress, through repeal of the 1929 law that set the cap, were “unfrozen” and expanded to reflect our population, California would have hundreds of micro-districts. Gerrymandering would become irrelevant. Communities could elect neighbors who actually know them. Partisan cartography would give way to genuine representation.

Rather than chasing temporary fixes like Proposition 50, Californians should lead a national call to restore Congress to its constitutional scale. That would end gerrymandering not for one decade, but forever.

Pini Herman, Beverly Grove

..

To the editor: Our democracy is on life support. We, the voters, may be the last hope before it’s gone.

However, even if the Democrats win the House in 2026, it won’t change President Trump’s behavior. He will continue to do what he wants, when he wants, all under the cover of being “official acts” of the president.

Unless the Democratic Party can find a message that resonates with Americans (who are not part of the top 1% of wealth), winning the House will be a hollow victory.

The best we can hope for is a third try at impeachment. If successful, that might prevent Trump from running for a third, unconstitutional, term of office.

Betty Rome, Culver City

..

To the editor: Skelton’s column should have pointed out that the current distribution of House seats in California is 83% Democratic and 17% Republican. In Texas, it is 41% Democratic and 59% Republican. If we have a five-seat Democratic increase in California seats, the percentage in California goes to 92% Democratic and 8% Republican. If we have a five-seat Republican increase in Texas, the mix goes to 38% Democratic and 62% Republican.

As a lifelong California Republican, I’m not happy with the current distribution of House seats at 17% and will be even less happy at an 8% level. Hopefully the political breakdown in California will eventually return to the levels we had under great Republican governors like Ronald Reagan and others. We might even stop losing population and businesses to Texas and other well-run states.

Larry Hart, Tarzana

..

To the editor: Another outstanding column by Skelton in the Los Angeles Times regarding the politics of Prop. 50. The only claim in that column I have an issue with is when Skelton states “our republic will survive regardless of what happens to [Gov. Gavin] Newsom’s gerrymandering proposal.”

I certainly hope Skelton is right, but I’m not as confident as he is that our republic will survive three more years of Trump.

Fred Gober, Playa Vista

..

To the editor: The debate over Prop. 50 revolves around two different arguments: First, that “two wrongs do not make a right,” i.e. just because Texas engages in blatant gerrymandering (at Trump’s insistence) does not mean California should suspend its nonpartisan district commission and do the same. Second, “fight fire with fire,” which firefighters regularly do successfully.

If Prop. 50 succeeds in igniting a gerrymandering arms race, the two major parties should welcome an armistice. It should include national standards for apolitical commissions in all states to establish congressional voting districts, and rank choice voting with no primary elections. This alone would reduce election costs, better reflect voters’ preferences and promote moderate candidates who appeal to the most voters.

Trump could use his apparently persuasive powers to encourage all states to fall in line with such reforms if he really wants to be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Todd Collart, Ventura