Redistricting Plan Not Good for State [Opinion]

Opinion: California’s Redistricting Proposal Isn’t About What’s Good for California — It’s About What’s Good for Politicians

Every state has its own system of laws governing redistricting. I won’t claim to know the intricacies of Texas election law or the details of how New York manages its maps. Each state has the right to set its own rules. But what I do know — because I live here and I follow California law — is that Californians have already spoken loudly and clearly about how redistricting must be handled.

Twice, California voters went to the ballot box to remove politicians from the redistricting process. Through Propositions 11 (2008) and 20 (2010), Californians established the independent Citizen Redistricting Commission. These reforms were not accidents, nor were they symbolic gestures. They were deliberate choices by voters who understood that redistricting is far too important to be left to politicians whose own careers depend on how the lines are drawn.

The principle behind the commission is simple: voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.

Now, more than a decade later, the Governor and Legislature are pushing a proposal that would sideline the Citizen Redistricting Commission and place redistricting power back in the hands of politicians. Let’s be absolutely clear: this proposal is not about good governance, sound policy, or strengthening California’s democracy. It is about consolidating political power.

The Will of the Voters — Ignored

When Californians approved Propositions 11 and 20, they enshrined into law the principle that redistricting must be handled by citizens, not by elected officials. It was a response to decades of gerrymandering, where incumbents protected themselves by drawing “safe” districts that served politicians rather than communities.

If the will of the voters can be undone whenever it becomes politically inconvenient, then what is the purpose of the California Constitution? What is the point of direct democracy, if the outcomes can simply be disregarded by those in power?

The implications go far beyond redistricting. If the precedent is set that voter-approved reforms can be overturned whenever politicians dislike the outcome, then the very foundation of California’s constitutional system is at risk.

Not a Partisan Issue

This debate should not be reduced to Democrats versus Republicans. It is about whether the rules apply equally to everyone, regardless of who holds office.

If you are a Democrat today, ask yourself honestly: would you be comfortable with a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature discarding the independent commission so they could draw the maps themselves? The answer is almost certainly no. And if it is unacceptable in that scenario, then it must also be unacceptable in this one.

Consistency matters. Principles matter. The redistricting process belongs to the people, not to whichever party happens to hold power in Sacramento at the moment.

The Cost of Playing Politics

Beyond the constitutional issues, there is also the staggering cost of this proposal. The estimated price tag of holding a special statewide election on redistricting is more than $250 million. That’s a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money — at a time when California is already facing a deep financial crisis.

What would we get for that money? At best, a temporary fix that lasts just a few years. California will be due for another full redistricting cycle in less than five years, after the 2030 Census. That means $250 million could be wasted on a process that will have to be redone almost immediately.

Think about what else $250 million could support: rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, investing in water and energy infrastructure, supporting our veterans and seniors, expanding youth programs, or funding public safety. At a time when Californians are struggling with high costs of living and local governments are cutting services, spending a quarter of a billion dollars on a political power play is not just irresponsible — it is offensive.

Transparency — or the Lack of It

The process by which this proposal has been advanced raises serious concerns about transparency. During legislative hearings, not one politician in favor of the measure could clearly identify who actually drew the proposed lines or which consultants were involved.

If the commission’s work is discarded and replaced with a system run by politicians and their consultants, Californians will be left in the dark about how districts are drawn, who is influencing the process, and whose interests are being served. That is the opposite of transparency. It is the opposite of accountability. And it is precisely what voters sought to prevent when they created the Citizen Redistricting Commission.

A Question of Trust

At its core, this issue is about trust. Can voters trust their leaders to respect the will of the people? Can they trust that constitutional reforms passed at the ballot box will be honored, not undermined?

By attempting to dismantle the independent redistricting process, California’s leaders are sending a dangerous message: that the will of the people matters only when it aligns with the interests of politicians. That is not democracy. That is governance by convenience.

A Call to Put Policy and People First

California faces enormous challenges — economic uncertainty, housing shortages, crumbling infrastructure, public safety concerns, and more. Instead of focusing on solutions that improve the lives of Californians, our leaders are choosing to spend political energy and taxpayer dollars on a proposal that benefits only themselves.

This is not about Republicans. It is not about Democrats. It is about Californians — the millions of voters who demanded fair representation when they passed Propositions 11 and 20. To disregard that choice is to disregard the people themselves.

Redistricting belongs to the people of California. It does not belong to the Governor. It does not belong to the Legislature. And it certainly does not belong to political consultants working behind closed doors.

It is time to put politics aside, and put policy and people first.