gerrymander

We now have an estimated price tag for California’s special election and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s presidential rollout: $282.6 million.

The Nov. 4 vote involves Proposition 50, which would gerrymander the state to boost Democratic chances of winning as many as five added House seats in the 2026 midterm election. The intent is to partially compensate for Republican gerrymanders in Texas and other states.

The ballot measure has already done wonders to boost Newsom’s early standing in the 2028 presidential contest — emphasis on the word early. After alienating many in his party by playing footsie with the likes of Steve Bannon and the late Charlie Kirk, Newsom has set hearts aflutter among those yearning for Democrats to “fight back against Trump,” to cite what has become the party’s chief animating principle and cri de cœur.

One could ask whether the not-insignificant cost of the special election is the best use of taxpayer dollars, or if the sum would be better spent, as veteran GOP strategist Ken Khachigian suggested in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “on firefighters, police officers, schoolteachers and road repairs.”

Newsom, in full barricade-manning mode, has said protecting our precious democracy is “priceless.”

The chairman of California’s Democratic Party, Rusty Hicks, placed a more concrete price tag on the virtues of Proposition 50, suggesting to the Bay Area News Group that money spent on the special election would be offset — and then some — by the billions California would otherwise lose under President Trump’s hostile regime.

There is, however, an added, if intangible, cost to Proposition 50: Effectively disenfranchising millions of conservative and Republican-leaning Californians, who already feel as though they’re ignored and politically impotent.

Under the Democratic gerrymander, the already-meager Republican House contingent — nine of 52 California House members — could be cut practically in half. Starting in January 2027, the state’s entire Republican delegation could fit in a Jeep Wagoneer, with plenty of room to spare.

This in a state where Trump received over 6 million votes in 2024.

The cost of California’s special election is estimated at $282.6 million. The campaign is effectively a roll out for a Newsom presidential bid.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

The would-be autocrat issuing diktats from the Oval Office may be odious to many. But making people feel as though their vote is irrelevant, their voice is muzzled and they have no stake in our political system because elections are essentially meaningless — at least as far as which party prevails — is not a recipe for a contented and engaged citizenry, or a healthy democracy.

We already have a chief executive who has repeatedly demonstrated that he sees himself as the president of red America, of those who support him unequivocally, with everyone else regarded as evil or subversive. We’ve seen how well that’s worked out.

Is the solution electing a governor for blue California, who — if not openly scorning the state’s millions of Republicans — is willing to render them politically powerless?

Proponents of Proposition 50 say the measure is needed to offset Republican gerrymanders in Texas and other states.

(Hon Wing Chiu/For The Times)

All seven of the major Democrats running to succeed Newsom support Proposition 50. (The two leading Republican — and underdog — candidates, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, are opposed, which is no surprise.)

Your friendly columnist put the question to those seven Democrats. What do they say to Republican voters who already feel disregarded and politically unrepresented? As governor, is there a place for them in your vision of California?

Most, as you’d expect, vowed to be a governor for all: Red, blue, independent, libertarian, vegetarian.

Former Rep. Katie Porter noted she served a purple Orange County district and won support from voters of all stripes “because they knew I wouldn’t hesitate to stand up for anyone — no matter to what party they belong — who makes life harder for California families.” She said in a text message she’d bring “that same tenacity, grit and courage” to Sacramento.

Toni Atkins, a former Assembly speaker and state Senate leader, texted that she’s “made it a priority to listen to every Californian — Democrat, Republican, and Independent.” Assailing Republicans in Congress, she described Proposition 50 as “a way to fight back now” while eventually reverting to the independent redistricting commission that drew up the current congressional lines.

Xavier Becerra, the state’s former attorney general and a member of Joe Biden’s cabinet, said he would work to see that all Californians, regardless of party, benefit from his leadership on healthcare, housing and making the state more affordable. Doing that, he texted, requires fighting Trump and “Republican extremists” seeking to rig the midterm elections.

Betty Yee, the former state controller, just finished a campaign swing through rural California, where, she said, voters asked similar questions along the lines of what about us? Those vast reaches beyond the state’s blue coastal enclaves have long been a hotbed of resentment toward California’s ruling Democratic establishment.

Yee said she urged voters there to “look at your representation now.” The Republican-run Congress, she noted, has approved budget cuts that threaten to shut down rural hospitals and gut badly needed social safety-net programs. “How is that representing your interest?” she asked.

Tony Thurmond, the state schools superintendent, said much the same.

“One of the reasons that I support this measure is because California Republicans in Congress who voted for the ‘big, beautiful bill’ voted for a bill that they knew was going to throw millions of people off of health insurance,” Thurmond said. “And that’s troubling, and I actually think that this is a way to counter that action and to make changes in Congress.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and businessman Stephen Cloobeck ignored the question about Republican sentiments and assailed Trump.

Villaraigosa called Proposition 50 “a temporary … direct response to MAGA’s election rigging efforts in Texas.” Cloobeck texted, “This is not the way it should be, but democracy and California are under attack, and there is no way in hell I’m not going to FIGHT.”

There’s a certain presumption and paternalism to the notion that California Democrats know what’s best for California Republicans.

But as Thurmond noted, “They have a right to vote it down. We’re putting it in front of the voters and giving them a chance to exercise their viewpoints, democratically.”

Every Californian who casts a ballot can decide what best suits them.

As they should.

It’s been more than 60 years since Utah backed a Democrat for president. The state’s last Democratic U.S. senator left office nearly half a century ago and the last Utah Democrat to serve in the House lost his seat in 2020.

But, improbably enough, Utah has suddenly emerged as a rare Democratic bright spot in the red-vs.-blue redistricting wars.

Late last month, a judge tossed out the state’s slanted congressional lines and ordered Utah’s GOP-run Legislature to draw a new political map, ruling that lawmakers improperly thumbed their noses and overrode voters who created an independent redistricting commission to end gerrymandering.

It’s a welcome pushback against the growing pattern of lawmakers arrogantly ignoring voters and pursuing their preferred agenda. You don’t have to be a partisan to think that elections should matter and when voters express their will it should be honored.

Otherwise, what’s the point of holding elections?

Anyhow, redistricting. Did you ever dream you’d spend this much time thinking about the subject? Typically, it’s an arcane and extremely nerdy process that occurs once a decade, after the census, and mainly draws attention from a small priesthood of line-drawing experts and political obsessives.

Suddenly, everyone is fixated on congressional boundaries, for which we can thank our voraciously self-absorbed president.

Trump started the whole sorry gerrymandering business — voters and democracy be damned — by browbeating Texas into redrawing its congressional map to try to nab Republicans as many as five additional House seats in 2026. The paranoid president is looking to bolster his party ahead of a tough midterm election, when Democrats need to gain just three seats to win a House majority and attain some measure of control over Trump’s rogue regime.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to Texas with a proposed Democratic gerrymander and perhaps you’re thinking, well, what about his attempted power grab? While your friendly columnist has deplored efforts to end-run the state’s voter-established redistricting commission, at least the matter is going on the ballot in a Nov. 4 special election, allowing the people to decide.

Meantime, the political race to the bottom continues.

Lawmakers in Republican-run Florida, Indiana, Missouri and Ohio may tear up their congressional maps in favor of partisan gerrymanders, and Democrats in Illinois and New York are being urged to do the same.

When all is said and done, 10 or so additional seats could be locked up by one party or the other, even before a single ballot is cast; this when the competitive congressional map nationwide has already shrunk to a postage stamp-sized historic low.

If you think that sort of pre-baked election and voter obsolescence is a good thing, you might consider switching your registration to Russia or China.

Utah, at least, offers a small ray of positivity.

In 2018, voters there narrowly approved Proposition 4, taking the map-drawing process away from self-interested lawmakers and creating an independent commission to handle redistricting. In 2021, the Republican-run Legislature chose to ignore voters, gutting the commission and passing a congressional map that allowed the GOP to easily win all four of Utah’s House seats.

The trick was slicing and dicing Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, the state’s most populous and densely packed, and scattering its voters among four predominantly Republican districts.

“There’s always going to be someone who disagrees,” Carson Jorgensen, the chairman of the Utah Republican Party, said airily as lawmakers prepared to give voters their middle finger.

In July 2024, Utah’s five Supreme Court justices — all Republican appointees — found that the Legislature’s repeal and replacement of Proposition 4 was unconstitutional. The ruling kicked the case over to Salt Lake County District Judge Dianna Gibson, who on Aug. 25 rejected the partisan maps drawn by GOP lawmakers.

Cue the predictable outrage.

“Monday’s Court Order in Utah is absolutely Unconstitutional,” Trump bleated on social media. “How did such a wonderful Republican State like Utah, which I won in every Election, end up with so many Radical Left Judges?”

In Gibson’s case, the answer is her appointment by Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican who would be considered a radical leftist in the same way a hot fudge sundae could be described as diet food.

Others offered the usual condemnation of “judicial activism,” which is political-speak for whenever a court decision doesn’t go your way.

“It’s a terrible day … for the rule of law,” lamented Utah’s Republican Sen. Mike Lee, who is apparently concerned with legal proprieties only insofar as they serve his party’s president and the GOP, having schemed with Trump allies in their failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

In a ruling last week rejecting lawmakers’ request to pause her decision, Gibson wrote that “Utah has an opportunity to be different.”

“While other states are currently redrawing their congressional maps to intentionally render some citizen votes meaningless, Utah could redesign its congressional plan with the intention to protect its citizens’ right to vote and to ensure that each citizen’s vote is meaningful.”

That’s true. Utah can not only be different from other states, as Gibson suggested.

It can be better.

For Patricia Sinay, one of the highlights of her life was serving on the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which spent well over a year painstakingly plotting out the state’s political boundaries.

“I got to witness democracy at its core,” said Sinay, 58, who lives in Encinitas and works as a consultant in the world of nonprofits.

“There were 14 very diverse people who came at this work from different backgrounds,” she said. “Some may have known more than others about redistricting. But by the end we were all experts and focused on the same thing, which was creating fair maps for the people of California.”

Now, a good deal of that work may come undone, as voters are being asked to scrap the even-handed congressional lines drawn by Sinay and her fellow commissioners in favor of a blatantly gerrymandered map that could all but wipe out California’s Republican representation in Congress.

Sinay, a Democrat, is ambivalent.

She understands the impetus behind the move, a tit-for-tat response to a similar Republican gerrymander in Texas, done at President Trump’s behest to shore up the GOP’s chances ahead of a perilous 2026 midterm election.

“I think what President Trump requested is absolutely abhorrent. I think that Texas doing this is absolutely abhorrent,” Sinay said. “I do not support the actions of the current administration. I think that their actions are absolutely dangerous and scary.”

But, she said, “I don’t think this is the best way to stop what the administration is doing.”

Sinay noted Republicans have more gerrymandering opportunities nationwide than Democrats, should political adversaries go that route, and she questioned the cost of California’s Nov. 4 special election, which could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

“There are too many people right now that are hurting that could use that money in much better ways,” Sinay said.

Other commissioners disagree.

Sara Sadhwani, 45, a Democrat who teaches political science at Pomona College, spoke at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s rally kicking off the gerrymandering effort and testified before the state Senate, urging lawmakers to put the matter before voters so they can give Democrats a lift.

“These are extraordinary times,” Sadhwani said, “and extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.”

Trena Turner, a pastor in Stockton and fellow commissioner, said she’s tremendously proud of the commission’s work and believes its impartial approach to political line-drawing is a model the rest of America should embrace.

But, she said, “I don’t think we should be playing by individual rules, different rules from state to state,” given what’s taken place in Texas and the threat of GOP gerrymandering in other places, such as Florida.

“The voices that we need to speak up for now are not just our individual congressional districts,” said the 64-year-old Democrat. “We need to speak up for the voices of our nation, for the soul of our nation.”

Neal Fornaciari, a Republican who chairs the redistricting commission, said individual members are speaking strictly for themselves. (Though its map-making function was completed at the end of 2021, the commission remains in existence.)

Commissioners “are exercising their 1st Amendment right to free speech,” said Fornaciari, 63, a retired mechanical engineer who lives in Shingletown, in the far north of California. But, he emphasized, “The commission is in no way involved in this redistricting effort.”

He even declined to state his personal views on the Democratic gerrymander, lest someone mistakenly assume Fornaciari was speaking on the commission’s behalf.

The body was created in 2008 when California voters approved Proposition 11, also known as the Voters First Act. Spearheaded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the measure sought to bring balance to legislative races by taking redistricting away from lawmakers, who tended to draw the state’s political lines to suit their interests and minimize competition.

In 2010, voters extended the commission’s oversight to congressional races.

Consisting of 14 members, the panel is divided among five Democrats, five Republicans and four members with no party affiliation. More than 30,000 Californians applied for the positions.

The 14 who landed the job survived a grueling selection process, overseen by the nonpartisan state auditor, which involved detailed questionnaires, multiple essays and face-to-face interviews. The final lineup included a seminary professor, a structural engineer and an investigator for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Over the course of 16 months — and through days sometimes lasting 12 hours or more — commissioners produced 176 maps. They created district boundaries for 52 members of Congress, 120 state lawmakers and four members of the Board of Equalization, which oversees tax collection in California.

Commissioners worked for free, receiving no salary, though they did get a $378 per diem on days they spent in session.

It’s a point of pride that no one sued to overturn the commission’s work, a rarity in the highly litigious field of redistricting.

“Most of the time if you watched our meetings I doubt if you could have correctly guessed all our political affiliations,” Russell Yee, a Republican commissioner, said in an email. “We approved our final maps unanimously. We proved that citizens can rise above political, racial, regional, and generational differences to do the public’s work together in an open and successful manner.”

(All commission meetings were open to the public, with proceedings livestreamed on the internet.)

Yee, 64, the academic director at a small Christian study center in Berkeley, said he was generally opposed to the Democratic gerrymandering effort “because two wrongs don’t make a right. The ends do not justify the means.”

However, while Yee leans against Proposition 50, as the November ballot measure has been designated, he will “keep listening with an open mind.”

Even if voters crumple up and toss the congressional maps Yee and others drafted, none felt as though their labors were wasted. For one thing, they said, the other political boundaries, for state legislative contests and the Board of Equalization, will remain intact. And the congressional lines yielded a set of highly competitive races in 2020 and 2024.

“We’ve shown twice now that independent, citizen redistricting can work well even in a state as populous, demographically diverse, and geographically complex at California,” Yee said.

For her part, Sinay, the nonprofit consultant, is uncertain about Proposition 50.

One thing she wants, Sinay said, is reassurance “this isn’t a permanent power grab” and that congressional redistricting will, in fact, revert to the commission after the next census, as Newsom and gerrymandering proponents have promised. Sidelining self-interested politicians is definitely a better way to draw political maps, she suggested, but ultimately it’s up to voters to decide.

“I will definitely support whatever the people of California want,” Sinay said.

Texas Republicans, at President Donald Trump’s urging, are preparing to redraw the state’s congressional map in a way that could flip up to five seats to the GOP in 2026. Trump hopes to boost Republicans’ chances of maintaining a narrow House majority amid the headwinds of the midterm election.

The manoeuvre in Texas would be legal and not unprecedented for the state, which also undertook a Republican-driven redistricting in 2003. But Democrats have called the move a partisan power grab and an affront to the traditional practice of drawing new congressional districts every 10 years, after a new Census.

But the debate over Texas’s electoral map has also prompted broader questions over the fairness of the way in which voting districts are outlined. And the one state bigger than Texas – California – has caught the attention of Vice President JD Vance.

“The gerrymander in California is outrageous,” Vance posted July 30 on X. “Of their 52 congressional districts, 9 of them are Republican. That means 17 percent of their delegation is Republican when Republicans regularly win 40 percent of the vote in that state. How can this possibly be allowed?”

So, does California have an unfair map, as Vance said?

By the numbers, California is not a dramatic outlier when it comes to the difference between its congressional and presidential vote. However, because this difference is multiplied by a large number of districts – since California is the United States’ most populous state – it produces a bounty of House seats beyond what the state’s presidential vote alone would predict.

Vance’s description of California’s map as a “gerrymander” is also doubtful – it was drawn by a bipartisan commission, not Democratic legislators. Gerrymandering is done by politicians and political parties.

Vance’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.

What the numbers show

Our first step was to measure the difference between each state’s House-seat breakdown by party and its presidential-vote breakdown by party, which is what Vance cited. (Our analysis builds off of a 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball story written by this author. Sabato’s Crystal Ball is a publication of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.) We removed from consideration any state with one, two or three House members in its delegation, because these small states have wide differentials that skew the comparison.

For red states won by Trump, we took the percentage of Republican seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Trump won in that state. Conversely, for blue states won by Kamala Harris, we took the percentage of Democratic seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Harris won in the state.

Our analysis found that California did elect more Democrats to the House than its presidential vote share would have predicted, but the state was not an outlier. With 83% of its House seats held by Democrats and 58% of its 2024 presidential votes going to Democrats, California ranked 13th nationally among 35 states that have at least four seats in their delegation.

California has the nation’s 13th widest difference between House and presidential results

The top 13 differentials were split roughly evenly between blue and red states.

In six states that have at least four House seats – red Iowa, Utah, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and blue Connecticut and Massachusetts – a single party controls every House seat, even though the winning presidential candidate won between 56% and 66% of the vote in those states.

Another six states had a differential equal to or wider than California’s: Red South Carolina and Tennessee, and blue Oregon, Illinois and Maryland, plus purple Wisconsin.

California does stand out by another measure, because of its size.

If you multiply the House-to-presidential differential by the number of House seats in the delegation, you get a figure for “excess House seats”, the term used in the 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball article – essentially, a majority party’s bonus in House seats beyond what presidential performance would predict.

Because California has a large population represented by many House districts, even its modest differential produces a lot of extra Democratic House seats – 12, to be exact. That’s the largest of any state; the closest competitors are blue Illinois and New York, and red Florida, each of which has more than four excess seats for the majority party.

Texas’s current congressional map has 3.7 excess seats for the Republicans. That would increase to an 8.7-seat GOP bonus if the GOP can flip the five seats they’re hoping for in 2026.

Is California a “gerrymander”?

Vance described California’s map as a gerrymander, but political experts doubted that this term applies. A gerrymander typically refers to a map drawn by partisan lawmakers, and California’s is drawn by a commission approved by voters specifically to remove the partisanship from congressional map drawing.

“California’s congressional map is no gerrymander,” said Nathaniel Rakich, a contributing analyst to Inside Elections, a political analytics publication. “It was drawn by an independent commission consisting of five Republicans, five Democrats, and four independents that is generally upheld as one of the fairest map-drawing entities in any state.”

Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, said commissions tend to produce a more competitive House battleground than a fully partisan system. Of the 19 House seats his outlet currently rates as toss-ups going into 2026, only two come from states where one party had a free hand to gerrymander the current district lines.

“I think it’s fair to say that commission and court-drawn maps can inject some competitiveness into the process,” Kondik said.

Because the seats were drawn by a commission, California has a lot of competitive seats. This helps California Republicans despite the state’s Democratic tilt.

According to the 2024 pre-election ratings by Sabato’s Crystal Ball, California had three Democratic-held seats in the “lean Democratic” category, and two more that were rated “likely Democratic”.

So, going into the election, five of California’s 40 Democratic-held seats are at least somewhat vulnerable to a Republican takeover. Texas Democrats aren’t so lucky, under its existing map: They are able to realistically target only one “likely Republican” seat out of 25 held by the GOP.

Sometimes, geography is the enemy of a “fair” map

Despite map makers’ efforts, it is sometimes impossible to produce a map that jibes perfectly with a state’s overall partisan balance. The cold facts of geography can prevent this.

One oft-cited example is Massachusetts, which hasn’t elected a Republican to the US House since 1994. There are few Republican hotbeds in Massachusetts, and experts say they can’t be easily connected into coherent congressional districts.

“Especially in deep-red or deep-blue states, parties tend to get a higher share of seats than they do of votes,” Rakich said. “Imagine a state where Republicans get two-thirds of the vote in every district; obviously, they would get 100 percent of their seats.”

Rakich said Democrats are geographically distributed more favourably in California. But in other states, Republicans benefit from better geographic distribution.

“I haven’t heard Vance complain about the fact that Democrats only get 25 percent of Wisconsin’s congressional seats despite regularly getting 50 percent of the vote there,” Rakich added.