We are excited to announce our campaign kickoff for Yes on Prop 50 next Saturday, September 13th at 9am at the NVLF Modesto office, 417 N Seventh St, Modesto. We are kickstarting our Yes on Prop 50 campaign to counter attacks on our democracy, and we need your help! RSVP HERE.
Still confused about what this special election is all about? Join us for our September NVLF Chapter meetings as we do a deep dive on the context and importance of Prop 50. We will be holding meetings in Stockton, Modesto and Merced. RSVP HERE to join us at one of these meetings or see the flyer (below left) for more information. We are going to be holding Saturday canvasses, Tues and Thurs phone banks, and much more. For our full campaign schedule, see nvlf.org/prop50 or the flyer below.
Local 9333 will never tell you how to vote, so here are some reasons to vote YES and some reasons to vote NO on this proposition.
Why vote YES?
Californians voting “yes” on Proposition 50 in November 2025 would be supporting a measure that changes the state’s congressional district maps. This is a complex issue, and proponents for a “yes” vote often cite the following arguments:
Voters Have the Final Say: Supporters highlight that the measure gives the people of California the ultimate power to approve or reject the new map in a special election, rather than leaving the decision solely to politicians.
Countering Gerrymandering in Other States: The primary argument in favor of Prop 50 is that it’s a necessary response to partisan gerrymandering in states like Texas. Proponents, including California’s governor, argue that by redrawing California’s districts, the state can offset the gains Republicans made in other states, thereby ensuring fair representation on a national level. They see it as a way to “fight back” against what they call an “election rigging scheme.”
A New “Fair” Map: Proponents argue that the new, legislature-drawn map is fair and representative of California’s diverse communities. They claim the proposed map would create more compact districts with fewer splits of cities and counties compared to previous maps, and that it would comply with federal voting rights laws.
Protecting Democratic Power: A significant motivation for supporters is to increase the number of Democrats elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. The proposed map is designed to potentially flip several districts currently held by Republicans. This is seen as a way to provide a check and balance on the current administration and to advance a progressive political agenda.
Temporary and Necessary: Supporters emphasize that the change is temporary. Prop 50 would only put the new map in place for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections. The state’s independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was created by voters to ensure non-partisan map drawing, would resume its authority after the 2030 census. Proponents see this as a proportional and emergency response to a unique situation, not a permanent rollback of the state’s redistricting reforms.
Why vote NO?
Arguments against California’s Proposition 50, which would allow the state legislature to draw new congressional district maps, are centered on a number of key principles and concerns. Those voting “no” on Prop 50 in November 2025 would likely be motivated by the following:
Waste of Taxpayer Money: Opponents argue that holding a special election is an unnecessary and massive waste of taxpayer money, especially given the state’s budget deficit. They claim that the money being spent on the election could be better used on pressing issues like housing, healthcare, and education.
Protecting the Independent Redistricting Commission: The most significant argument against Prop 50 is that it undermines the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. This commission was created by California voters through Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010 to take the power of drawing district lines out of the hands of politicians and give it to a balanced, non-partisan panel of citizens. Opponents see Prop 50 as a direct attack on this voter-approved reform, effectively a “power grab” by the legislature.
Fighting Gerrymandering, Not Committing It: Opponents argue that while Prop 50 is framed as a response to gerrymandering in other states, it is, in fact, an act of gerrymandering itself. They believe that fighting partisan maps with other partisan maps sets a dangerous precedent and goes against California’s commitment to fair elections. They argue that gerrymandering is wrong regardless of which party is doing it, and California should be a leader in non-partisan redistricting, not a participant in the national gerrymandering wars.
Undermining Transparency and Public Input: The independent commission’s process is designed to be public and transparent, with significant input from communities across the state. Opponents of Prop 50 contend that the new map was drawn secretly by politicians and special interests, with no meaningful public engagement. This lack of transparency, they argue, is a step backward for democracy in California.
The New Map is Flawed: Critics of Prop 50 point out that the proposed new map, despite claims of being more compact, actually splits more cities and counties than the map drawn by the independent commission. They argue that this breaks up communities of interest and dilutes the voting power of various neighborhoods and groups.
It’s a Political Power Grab, Not a Temporary Fix: While supporters claim Prop 50 is a temporary measure, opponents argue that it sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to a permanent rollback of the independent redistricting commission. They believe the measure is an attempt by politicians to regain control over the process indefinitely. The fact that the new map would be in effect for three election cycles (2026, 2028, and 2030) is seen as a long-term change, not a short-term response.
