This November Californians will vote on Proposition 50, which would replace California’s current congressional district maps—drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission—with new ones drawn by the state legislature. Last week, PPIC president and CEO Tani Cantil-Sakauye spoke with three experts to learn more about the circumstances that gave rise to Prop 50 and the consequences of the vote.

Congressional districts are typically redrawn at the beginning of each decade to account for shifts in the population. However, after Texas redrew its congressional map earlier this year to add five new districts that would favor Republicans, California Democrats responded with Prop 50. Under the new maps proposed by Prop 50, Democrats stand to win five more House seats in the 2026 election, noted Eric McGhee, senior fellow at PPIC and an expert in elections and electoral reform.

The panelists agreed that Prop 50 is about political power, though they disagreed on the pros and cons. The context is key, according to Gale Kaufman, president of the political consulting firm Kaufman Strategies, given Texas’s new maps and ongoing attempts at partisan redistricting in other Republican states like Indiana. She argued that, prior to these efforts, Democrats had a good chance of gaining control of the House. In her view, Prop 50 helps restore the odds for “a more even election in 2026.”

Rob Stutzman, president of the political communications firm Stutzman Public Affairs, pointed to other potential consequences of Prop 50. For example, he said that the measure would “decimate” political representation for rural California, giving voters from the far north a representative from a coastal city who has “nothing in common” with them.

Stutzman also expressed concerns about whether California would be able to return to its independent redistricting commission if Prop 50 succeeds. Since the pressure to engage in partisan redistricting will likely continue, he asked, “How do you go back to restoring norms from here?”

Other factors will also affect the future of redistricting. The US Supreme Court will rehear a case involving the Voting Rights Act’s provision about political representation for voters of color. Kaufman commented that if the Supreme Court rules to end this provision, Republicans could draw up more House seats in their favor.

“We’re in an extraordinary time,” said McGhee. “Going back to the founding of our country, we’ve never really had a period where [the fight for the control of the House] has been this close for this long.” He noted that if either party were able to build a more durable majority coalition, redistricting would not be such a major issue.

The decision to change California’s congressional maps—or not—is in voters’ hands. Stay tuned to PPIC for more information as we track Californians’ views on Prop 50 and other issues of the day.

***

PPIC’s Speaker Series on California’s Future invites thought leaders and changemakers with diverse perspectives to participate critically, constructively, and collaboratively in public conversations. The purpose is to give Californians a better understanding of how our leaders are addressing the challenges facing our state.

PPIC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it support, endorse, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Any opinions expressed by event participants are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the Public Policy Institute of California.