Democrats in the California Legislature should think twice before signing on to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to change the state’s district maps for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives for the 2026 election. Gerrymanders could add five seats to Democrats’ current 43 of 52 seats.
He responded to a foolish scheme, urged by President Trump, for the Republican-majority Texas Legislature to redistrict their House maps, potentially adding three to five seats to the GOP roll. Both proposals would jump redistricting ahead of the 2020 U.S. Census.
After returning from its recess on Aug. 18, reported KCRA, the Legislature would have five days to craft legislation for a ballot measure, followed by Newsom calling a special election for Nov. 4.
Trump, unpopular here, obviously would be the object of Newsom’s campaign. But here are the top seven problems an initiative would face:
High cost. After the 2021 Newsom recall election failed, the next Feb. 2 Secretary of State Shirley Weber tallied a cost of $26 million for her office and $174 million for county registrars. Should California really spend $200 million or more on this?
Republicans this time need only quote Assemblymember Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, who as speaker in 2021 attacked the recall, “Neither the state nor the counties should be stuck footing the bill for such an unnecessary election.” Given the 2025-26 budget’s $12 billion deficit, this time the argument against waste would sting even more.
Election fatigue. In 2005 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called a Nov. 8 special election to decide four reform initiatives involving such things as spending limits and banning using teachers union dues for political campaigns. Along with four other initiatives, the result: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
A 2025 special election would be the sixth from 2021-25, including two primaries, two generals, the 2021 failed Newsom recall and this year’s election. With next year’s June primary following in seven months. Do Californians really need another campaign and another election?
Schwarzenegger opposition. As governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger helped push through the Proposition 11 redistricting reform in 2008 for state offices; then the Proposition 20 reform in 2010 for U.S. House seats. Both reforms gave redistricting to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
“He believes gerrymandering is evil no matter who does it,” said a spokesperson. “He still stands by the rule we learn in pre-school: two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Schwarzenegger’s appeal to persuadable moderates deal a blow to Newsom’s effort.
California League of Women Voters opposition. “California has become a national model for independent redistricting,” warned President Gloria Chun Hoo in an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee. “Let’s protect the integrity of our democratic process and reject the dangerous idea of mid-cycle redistricting.
Common Cause opposition. “Point blank, this is a dangerous move,” said Darius Kemp, the liberal reform group’s executive director. “We know independent redistricting works because California has been the national leader for years. We can’t afford to put our state’s democracy on the line during a time of national instability.”
In sum, this looks like a loser.
Here’s a better idea.
The U.S. Constitution stipulates, “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter” the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-California, is introducing a bill to ban mid-decade redistricting by any state, Democrat or Republican. That would stop the games from both parties to ensure some level of stability.
As to the Legislature, it should ignore Newsom’s latest grandstanding for his presidential run. Instead of playing political games, the Legislature should work to fix California’s myriad real problems.
John Seiler is on the SCNG Editorial Board