The fight to redraw districting maps has run rampant in the United States, and with a Nov. 4 special election deadline fast approaching, California voters are being thrown into the match, now key players for determining how the state will respond.
The sole measure on the state’s ballot is Proposition 50, which would temporarily establish new Congressional redistricting maps to help Democrats gain more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The new maps would be used through 2030, before the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission would resume the typical process of making maps in 2031.
It’s a measure that responds to Texas making a similar move, redrawing its maps to favor Republicans.
A key question arises in this debate: Would passing Prop 50 be an act of self defense to balance majority control of the House, or would it perpetuate the problem of partisan gerrymandering?
A little background: Every 10 years following the U.S. census, Congress redetermines how the 435 House seats will be distributed among each state (states may lose or gain representatives based on population size). California’s congressional numbers have generally trended upward, significantly increasing over the past century. The state reached 53 seats by 2010, then went back down to 52 seats after the 2020 census.
Once the seats are distributed, each state draws new congressional district boundaries based on census numbers.
Imagine then, what that means for our two most populous states, California and Texas.
With 52 and 38 seats respectively, representatives from those two states alone make up roughly 20% of the entire House. Since those individuals are elected from specific geographical boundaries, the method by which those lines are drawn plays a significant role in determining which way the House will lean while making laws – if the House will have a Republican or Democratic majority.
This is where gerrymandering comes into play. It’s the practice of drawing district boundaries in a way that can favor one political party or candidate.
Done right, redistricting is an opportunity to create maps that fairly and accurately represent communities with shared interests. Done with partisan intent, it’s a chance to rig boundaries to favor certain political parties. In theory, partisan affiliation shouldn’t have anything to do with it. In practice, partisan affiliation has nearly everything to do with it.
Both California and Texas are clearly using partisan affiliation to gerrymander – and neither are afraid to admit it – but there is one fundamental difference between both states. For Texas, a lawsuit from the Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden was the catalyst leading to the state’s redistricting. California’s move to redraw is a purely partisan response to Texas.
Prop 50 can either be seen as an effort to balance the scales, or a decision that is beyond return, setting the tone for partisan gerrymandering elsewhere. A few other states have already begun to follow suit: Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia.
When opining on how a good government should choose representatives, John Adams said in 1776 that a representative assembly should “be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large.”
Centuries later, we’re still struggling to define how to best divide up our representation in Congress. The fight has long since begun – political party affiliation has taken center stage in redistricting. Now it’s our chance to respond. Is it possible to get back to a place of fair redistricting, or is it already too late?
This editorial board believes redistricting should be based on shared community interests, not shared party affiliation.
