Prop. 50 will reduce the voting strength of cities and counties
By Daniel M. Kolkey | October 24, 2025
Proposition 50 – an admitted gerrymander of California’s congressional districts that is the subject of November 4’s special election – will not only harm voters by making our congressional districts less competitive and thus less responsive to voters, but will also undermine the influence of cities, counties and communities by further fracturing them.
How? Proposition 50 exempts its proposed congressional districts from complying with the California Constitution’s redistricting requirements to maintain “[t]he geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest” to the extent possible.
Freed from these good-government standards, Proposition 50 increases the number of times that counties, cities and communities are split between congressional districts, thereby reducing their influence in each district. After all, a city, county or community that is fragmented between multiple districts has less clout in each congressional district. The Princeton University Gerrymandering Project gives Proposition 50 a flunking grade for county splits and an overall grade of “F.”
This reduction in cities’ and counties’ influence can be seen from an analysis of Proposition 50’s impact on cities and counties. According to one in-depth study prepared by a coalition of organizations opposed to Proposition 50, Sacramento, which is presently split between two districts, would be split three ways under Proposition 50. This would sever black communities in Florin and Parkway from those in Sacramento’s core and would put them in a district that reaches North Lake Tahoe. Other parts of urban Sacramento would be linked with North Lake Tahoe and Truckee, whose priorities differ from Sacramento’s.
The city of Davis, which is not split under the current congressional map, would be split into two. Fresno would be split between four districts with one portion of the city being stretched into a district south of Bakersfield. Even little Lodi is split into three districts.
San Leandro is further split between three districts. Proposition 50 splits Petaluma, which is presently kept whole, with one part joined to neighboring Napa, and the other joined to a district that crosses Yolo, Colusa, Sutter, Sacramento, Placer and Yuba Counties. Stockton, which is currently in a single district as requested by the public during the hearings when the bipartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission drew California’s districts at the beginning of this decade, would be divided between two districts.
In Southern California, Anaheim, which is currently split, would be further fractured with a third split under Proposition 50. Long Beach would be further split into three districts, linking part of it to a district that is 55% in Orange County. Proposition 50 would also further fracture massive Los Angeles. And Fullerton would be split between three districts.
However, the additional fracturing of cities is only part of the problem: Proposition 50 joins communities that do not belong together. For instance, Proposition 50 joins the industrial port of Long Beach, along with its oil fields, to Corona Del Mar in Newport Beach, where coastal communities seek moratoriums on oil drilling. Likewise, Proposition 50 chooses to link ocean-side Malibu to Simi Valley – two areas with little in common. And Modoc County, situated in California’s far northeast corner, would be joined in a district that reaches the Golden Gate Bridge. In short, Proposition 50’s “divide and conquer” approach to democracy refuses to allow common sense to constrain corruption.
According to the same study, Proposition 50 would also dilute counties’ influence. Whereas the bipartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission split Fresno County into four districts, Proposition 50 would split it into six districts. Proposition 50 would also divide Orange County two more times, fragmenting it among eight districts and splits San Joaquin County between five districts.
Mendocino County, presently kept whole, would be split. Placer County, presently kept whole, would be split three ways simply to hurt the incumbent congressman who has criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget policies and mandates. Sacramento County, presently split between three districts, would be further divided into five districts with parts reaching to Nevada and Sonoma counties. Sonoma County, presently divided into two districts, would be split among three districts. Likewise, Yolo County, presently split between two districts, would be divided among three districts, with the consequence of splitting the city of Davis.
Unfortunately, this measure has been put before voters in an unprecedented expedited manner, shrinking to 75 days the constitutional standard of 131 days from qualification of a proposed constitutional amendment to the election at which it is considered. As a result, this hurried schedule has deprived voters of a chance to understand how Proposition 50 will alter their districts.
Newsom argues that the districts prepared by California’s bipartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission must be replaced by a map prepared by a political consultant without any public input, in order to respond to Texas’s redistricting in order to save democracy. But a California governor does not save democracy by destroying it in his own state.
