Payback? Power grab? Proposition 50 is California’s political ink-blot test
- Share via
- What California voters see in the redistricting measure depends on where, politically, they stand.
- In the purple Inland Empire, opinions seem more narrowly divided than statewide.
When it comes to Proposition 50, Marcia Owens is a bit fuzzy on the details.
She knows, vaguely, it has something to do with how California draws the boundaries for its 52 congressional districts, a convoluted and arcane process that’s not exactly top of the mind for your average person. But Owens is abundantly clear when it comes to her intent in Tuesday’s special election.
“I’m voting to take power out of Trump’s hands and put it back in the hands of the people,” said Owens, 48, a vocational nurse in Riverside. “He’s making a lot of illogical decisions that are really wreaking havoc on our country. He’s not putting our interests first, making sure that an individual has food on the table, they can pay their rent, pay electric bills, pay for healthcare.”
Peter Arensburger, a fellow Democrat who also lives in Riverside, was blunter still.
President Trump, said the 55-year-old college professor, “is trying to rule as a dictator” and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to stop him.
So, Arensburger said, California voters will do it for them.
Or at least try.
“It’s a false equivalency,” he said, “to say that we need to do everything on an even keel in California, but Texas” — which redrew its political map to boost Republicans — “can do whatever they want.”
Proposition 50 is part of a spiraling national fight over redistricting, sparked by President Donald Trump, that could determine the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 election.
Proposition 50, which aims to deliver Democrats at least five more House seats in the 2026 midterm election, is either righteous payback or a grubby power grab.
A reasoned attempt to even things out in response to Texas’ attempt to nab five more congressional seats. Or a ruthless gambit to drive the California GOP to near-extinction.
It all depends on your perspective.
Above all, Proposition 50 has become a political ink-blot test; what many California voters see depends on, politically, where they stand.
Mary Ann Rounsavall thinks the measure is “horrible,” because that’s how the Fontana retiree feels about its chief proponent, Gavin Newsom.
“He’s a jerk,” the 75-year-old Republican fairly spat, as if the act of forming the governor’s name left a bad taste in her mouth. “No one believes anything he says.”
Timothy, a fellow Republican who withheld his last name to avoid online trolls, echoed the sentiment.
“It’s just Gavin Newsom playing political games,” said the 39-year-old warehouse manager, who commutes from West Covina to his job at a plumbing supplier in Ontario. “They always talk about Trump. ‘Trump, Trump, Trump.’ Get off of Trump. I’ve been hearing this crap ever since he started running.”
Riverside and San Bernardino counties form the heart of the Inland Empire, east of Los Angeles. The next-door neighbors are politically purple: more Republican than the state as a whole, but not as conservative as California’s more rural reaches. That means neither party has an upper hand, a parity reflected in dozens of interviews with voters across the sprawling region.
On a recent smoggy morning, the hulking San Bernardino Mountains veiled by a gray-brown haze, Eric Lawson paused to offer his thoughts.
The 66-year-old independent has no use for politicians of any stripe. “They’re all crooks,” he said. “All of them.”
Lawson called Proposition 50 a waste of time and money.
Gerrymandering — the dark art of drawing political lines to benefit one party over another — is, as he pointed out, hardly new. (In fact, the term is rooted in the name of Elbridge Gerry, one of the nation’s founders.)
What has Lawson particularly steamed is the cost of “this stupid election,” which is pushing $300 million.
“We talk and talk and talk and we print money for all this talk,” said Lawson, who lives in Ontario and consults in the auto industry. “But that money doesn’t go where it’s supposed to go.”
Although sentiments were evenly split in those several dozen conversations, all indications suggest that Proposition 50 is headed toward passage Tuesday, possibly by a wide margin. After raising a tidal wave of cash, Newsom last week told small donors that’s enough, thanks. The opposition has all but given up and resigned itself to defeat.
About 60% of likely voters in California support Proposition 50, Democrats’ redistricting proposal that would change the state’s congressional districts.
It comes down to math. Proposition 50 has become a test of party muscle and a talisman of partisan faith and California has a lot more Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents.
Andrea Fisher, who opposes the initiative, is well aware of that fact. “I’m a conservative,” she said, “in a state that’s not very conservative.”
She has come to accept that reality, but fears things will get worse if Democrats have their way and slash California’s already-scanty Republican ranks on Capitol Hill. Among those targeted for ouster is Ken Calvert, a 16-term GOP incumbent who represents a good slice of Riverside County.
“I feel like it’s going to eliminate my voice,” said Fisher, 48, a food server at her daughter’s school in Riverside. “If I’m 40% of the vote” — roughly the percentage Trump received statewide in 2024 — “then we in that population should have fair representation. We’re still their constituents.” (In Riverside County, Trump edged Kamala Harris 49% to 48%.)
Amber Pelland, 46, who works in the nonprofit field in Corona, feels by “sticking it to Trump” — a tagline in one of the TV ads supporting Proposition 50 — voters will be sticking it to themselves. Passage would erase the political map drawn by an independent commission, which voters empowered in 2010 for the express purpose of wrestling redistricting away from self-dealing lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento.
“I don’t care if you hate the person or don’t hate the person,” said Pelland, a Republican who backs the president. “It’s just going to hurt voters by taking the power away from the people.”
Even some backers of Proposition 50 flinched at the notion of sidelining the redistricting commission and undoing its painstaking, nonpartisan work. What helps make it palatable, they said, is the requirement — written into the ballot measure — that congressional redistricting will revert to the commission after the 2030 census, when California’s next set of congressional maps is due to be drafted.
Over 3 million mail ballots have been returned in the special election about redrawing congressional districts. Political observers were surprised.
“I’m glad that it’s temporary because I don’t think redistricting should be done in order to give one political party greater power over another,” said Carole, a Riverside Democrat. “I think it’s something that should be decided over a long period and not in a rush.” (She also withheld her last name so her husband, who serves in the community, wouldn’t be hassled for her opinion.)
Texas, Carole suggested, has forced California to act because of its extreme action, redistricting at mid-decade at Trump’s command. “It’s important to think about the country as a whole,” said the 51-year-old academic researcher, “and to respond to what’s being done, especially with the pressure coming from the White House.”
Felise Self-Visnic, a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher, agreed.
She was shopping at a Trader Joe’s in Riverside in an orange ball cap that read “Human-Kind (Be Both).” Back home, in her garage-door window, is a poster that reads “No Kings.”
She described Proposition 50 as a stopgap measure that will return power to the commission once the urgency of today’s political upheaval has passed. But even if that wasn’t the case, the Democrat said, she would still vote in favor.
“Anything,” Self-Visnic said, “to fight fascism, which is where we’re heading.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
Supporters of Proposition 50 frame the measure as a necessary response to Republican efforts to gain congressional seats through redistricting in other states. Democratic voters in the article view the proposition as a way to counter what they describe as partisan gerrymandering tactics by Texas and other Republican-controlled states, which redrew their districts to yield Republicans up to five additional congressional seats[3].
Proponents argue that the measure serves as a corrective action on a national scale, with supporters contending that fairness in congressional redistricting should be judged based on national conditions rather than unilateral state actions[3]. These voters express concern that if Republicans engage in partisan gerrymandering in states they control, Democrats must respond in kind to maintain balance.
Supporters emphasize that Proposition 50 is temporary and includes a specific mechanism to revert control of redistricting back to the independent commission after the 2030 census[1]. This temporary nature makes the measure more palatable to some voters who might otherwise oppose legislative involvement in the redistricting process, as it preserves California’s long-term commitment to independent redistricting.
Some supporters characterize opposition to the proposition as a form of political complacency or inaction in the face of what they view as executive overreach. Voters backing the measure express concerns about broader threats to democratic institutions and argue that failing to respond to partisan actions by other states would effectively cede political power.
Different views on the topic
Opponents contend that Proposition 50 represents a violation of principles that California voters themselves established in 2010 when they created an independent redistricting commission to remove politics from the line-drawing process[1]. Critics argue that supporting the measure undermines the very nonpartisan redistricting reforms that voters previously championed and that overriding the commission’s work sets a dangerous precedent.
Republicans and conservative voters oppose the measure by framing it as partisan gamesmanship orchestrated by Governor Newsom rather than a principled response to out-of-state actions. Opponents view the proposition as a cynical political maneuver designed to eliminate Republican representation in California rather than as a legitimate response to national gerrymandering trends.
Critics raise fiscal concerns about the cost of the special election itself, arguing that California is spending approximately $300 million for a vote on a measure that represents partisan maneuvering rather than addressing substantive policy issues[2]. Some opponents question whether resources would be better directed toward immediate constituent needs such as healthcare, housing, and living costs.
Opponents argue that accepting Proposition 50 would establish a problematic precedent where states retaliate against each other through redistricting, essentially endorsing a “two wrongs make a right” approach to political warfare[3]. They contend that even if other states engage in partisan gerrymandering, California should maintain its commitment to independent, nonpartisan redistricting principles rather than participating in the same practices.
Critics who value Republican representation express concerns that the proposition would effectively eliminate their voice in Congress, arguing that conservative voters in California—who comprise approximately 40% of the electorate—deserve proportional representation reflecting their share of the population[2].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Residents rebuilding the Palisades are furious at Mayor Bass. Their champion, Councilmember Traci Park, joins the show. Hear her plan for what’s next.
When a helicopter crash killed actor Vic Morrow and two children on the set of Twilight Zone: The Movie, the filmmakers called it an unforeseeable accident. An LA County Sheriff’s detective saw something else: broken laws, reckless risks, and an A-list director who ignored warnings.
LA tried selling “canned smog” & drilling mountain tunnels to fix its air. But the real cost was deadly. Hear the full story of LA’s smog war on “Smoglandia.”
