California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week threatened that if Texas redraws its congressional districts to boost the Republicans’ thin House majority, he would consider calling a special election to redraw California’s congressional districts. According to the Sacramento Bee, he suggested that “the constitution allows the legislative body ‘some latitude’ in between censuses to do so.”
To the contrary, the California Constitution bars a mid-decade redistricting. Instead, Newsom would have to amend the California Constitution to both authorize a mid-decade redistricting and to transfer the power to redraw congressional districts from the Citizens Redistricting Commission—the current body that redistricts state and congressional districts—back to the Legislature.
Furthermore, there is probably not sufficient time to call a special election to amend the California Constitution to allow a mid-decade redistricting, to thereafter redistrict the congressional seats, and to allow sufficient time for candidates to declare and qualify their candidacies in new districts for the 2026 primary elections. Equally troubling, this threat is not only poor public policy, but it diverts the Legislature from addressing the more serious problems that Californians face before it adjourns.
First, in Legislature v. Deukmejian the California Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that the California Constitution barred an attempt to redistrict more than once a decade. There our Supreme Court struck down initiatives that sought to readjust the state’s congressional and state legislative districts after the Legislature had previously implemented new districts for the 1980s. The state high court confirmed that “only one valid plan for legislative and congressional districts may be implemented in a decennial census period.” It observed that the once-a-decade rule also “promotes stability in districts and minimizes political battles.”
Second, authorizing the Legislature to gerrymander California’s congressional districts would restore the highly political arrangement that the voters had twice rejected by which the state legislators had drawn their own districts as well as the congressional districts to which they might aspire.
Specifically, in 2008 California voters enacted Proposition 11, which established the Citizens Redistricting Commission to redistrict state legislative districts, thereby removing the self-interested state legislators from drawing their own districts. And in 2010, Californians adopted Proposition 20, which transferred the power to draw congressional districts to the Citizens Redistricting Commission.
Given that state legislators are subject to term limits, they obviously had a self-interest in drawing congressional districts to which they might aspire. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office explained in the ballot materials for Proposition 20 that when state legislators draw the districts, they are not prohibited from favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents or political candidates.
Third, under California law, a special election to consider a proposed constitutional amendment must be held at least 131 days after the adoption of the proposal by the Legislature. Indeed, this 131-day period may also have constitutional mandates that preclude it from being shortened for purposes of suppressing debate before the special election over the amendment. Accordingly, a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature in early August (and thus prepared in great haste) could only be approved at a special election no earlier than mid-December, which would have to be followed by the redistricting of 52 congressional districts, which done properly, requires hearings in order to receive input from the public who will be subject to those districts.
Even if the redistricting of 52 districts was completed in 60 days—meaning little public input and plenty of mistakes in drawing the lines —there would be little time for candidates to determine the district in which they would run and to qualify as a candidate and for the ballot pamphlet to be printed before a June 2026 primary.
Fourth, California’s congressional delegation is already composed of 43 Democrats and nine Republicans. Degrading California’s Constitution to achieve an unfair redistricting that necessarily splits towns, neighborhoods, communities of interest, and counties in defiance of well-settled legal principles, all done in the speculative hope of gaining even more Democratic seats, is not responsible government and could likely result in a backlash in the November elections for the state legislators responsible.
Finally, holding a special election would cost money that the state does not have since its 2025-2026 budget had to already paper over a $11.8-billion deficit.
Ultimately, a special election to amend the California Constitution that would undo California’s constitutional principle of one redistricting per decade and transfer power back to a self-interested Legislature will also divert the Legislature’s attention from the many real problems facing Californians: California’s unemployment rate of 5.4% in June is tied for 49th worst rate in the nation; California’s average gas prices were the highest in the nation as of April 1; nine of the 20 largest wildfires over the past 125 years have ignited since Newsom took office six years ago; and construction has not even begun on any of the $2.7 billion in water-storage projects authorized over 10 years ago by a bond measure approved by 67% of Californians.
Increasingly, in California nowadays, politics always trumps the public interest.
Daniel M. Kolkey, an attorney and former California appellate judge, served as counsel to Governor Pete Wilson, was the primary draftsman of Proposition 20, and serves on the board of Pacific Research Institute.