Gavin Newsom

California Prop 50: Gov. Newsom Lies to Voters to Forward His Future... Again.

Newsom claims TX is gerrymandering. TRUTH: Biden's DOJ sued TX & LOST. Courts ruled those districts unconstitutional. TX is legally required to fix them. Newsom manufactured this "emergency" in January—7 months before announcing it. Vote NO on Prop 50.

The Ripple Effect

18 Oct 2025 — 14 min read

VOTE NO! - Allows Legislative Congressional Redistricting Until 2030

What It Does

Proposition 50 would suspend California's independent, nonpartisan Citizens Redistricting Commission and replace it with politician-drawn congressional maps through 2030. The new maps, hastily drawn by Democrats in Sacramento, would be used for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 congressional elections.[1]

Fiscal Impact: The special election itself costs $282.6 million in taxpayer funds (increased to at least $284 million after correcting errors in voter guides).[2][3] This does NOT include implementation costs or the campaign spending that has already exceeded $140 million.[4]

The "Fighting Trump and Texas" Narrative: A Complete Fabrication

Governor Newsom's framing: Proposition 50 is positioned as an emergency response to Texas Republicans' gerrymandering their congressional maps. Newsom claims this is about "fighting back" against Donald Trump's attempt to rig the 2026 midterm elections.

The reality Newsom doesn't want you to know:

The Truth About Why Texas Redistricted

Texas was forced to redistrict because of a court ruling on unconstitutional coalition minority districts—not because of Trump or partisan gerrymandering. Constitutional attorney Mark Meuser has meticulously laid out the legal timeline that brought us to this point:[23]

The Legal Timeline:

2021: Texas drew congressional districts, creating four "coalition minority districts" (combining two minority communities to create minority-majority districts) - these created the bizarrely shaped districts shown in the Houston area maps (see images below)
March 24, 2022: Biden's DOJ sued Galveston County for not drawing coalition minority districts
October 13, 2023: Federal judge agreed with Biden's DOJ, requiring coalition minority districts
November 10, 2023: Three-judge 5th Circuit panel found that combining two minority groups to create minority-majority districts was unconstitutional
August 1, 2024: En banc 5th Circuit panel ruled: "coalition claims do not comport with Section 2's statutory language"—coalition minority districts are unconstitutional
July 7, 2025: Trump's DOJ sent a letter to Texas pointing out that four coalition minority congressional districts were now unconstitutional and needed to be fixed

Texas redrew its maps to comply with federal court rulings that declared those weirdly-shaped coalition minority districts unconstitutional and to avoid costly litigation defending unconstitutional districts. The state legislature, which is required by Texas law to draw congressional maps, followed the law to fix the unconstitutional districts.

Newsom's false narrative: According to Newsom, Texas should have been forced to keep those 2021 districts (the ones federal courts ruled unconstitutional), and Texas is only removing them because of Trump and to gain congressional control. This is a complete fabrication—courts ordered Texas to fix those districts because they violated federal law.

Let me be clear: Texas redistricted because Biden sued and lost, which clarified that certain types of districts were unconstitutional. Texas had to fix the problem created by Biden's DOJ lawsuit. The bizarre 2021 Texas districts that look gerrymandered? Courts ruled they WERE unconstitutional and ordered them redrawn.

The Stunning California Hypocrisy

Meanwhile, California's 2021 maps drawn by the Independent Redistricting Commission have never been challenged in court as unconstitutional. California had no legal requirement to redistrict. Newsom manufactured this "emergency" for pure political gain.

The staggering irony: Newsom is pointing to unconstitutional Texas districts from 2021 that courts ordered to be fixed as justification for California to create similarly tortured districts. It's like watching someone point at a condemned building and saying, "Look how bad that building is! Let's build one just like it!"

Even worse: The California Constitution prohibits the legislature from drawing congressional districts—that responsibility belongs to the Independent Redistricting Commission. To put Prop 50 on the ballot, the California Legislature had to violate the California Constitution multiple times.[24]

The breathtaking irony: Proposition 50 claims to support independent redistricting commissions nationwide while dismantling California's own independent commission to "combat" a state that redistricted to comply with federal court orders about constitutional requirements.

Let me be clear: California is removing its independent commission to respond to a state that doesn't have one being forced to redistrict by court order.

Why the Texas Comparison Makes Prop 50 Worse, Not Better

California acts regardless of Texas: If Prop 50 passes, California's new maps take effect whether Texas changes theirs or not. There is no mechanism tying California's redistricting to any other state's actions.[5]
Does nothing for national reform: While the ballot language asks voters to "support" nationwide independent redistricting, Prop 50 does absolutely nothing to advance that goal. It contains no enforcement mechanism and will not change federal law.[6] It's purely symbolic language designed to make voters feel better about abandoning the principles they voted for.
California abandons its leadership: In 2008 and 2010, California voters created the Citizens Redistricting Commission as a model for the nation. Prop 50 destroys that leadership by doing exactly what we criticized other states for doing: letting politicians draw their own districts.[7]
Texas increased diversity; California decreases it: Newsom claims California must fight Texas's gerrymandering, but Texas's new maps actually increase diversity in representation and create more equitable representation by voter share. Meanwhile, California's Prop 50 maps do the complete opposite—creating tortured, Tetris-puzzle districts that pack and crack communities to maximize Democratic advantage rather than representing California's actual diversity.[18] We're abandoning principles to do worse than what we're condemning.
The legislature asked for forgiveness, not permission: The California Legislature violated the state constitution multiple times to put this on the ballot, then asked voters to forgive them after the fact instead of seeking permission before violating their constitutional duties.[25] This is not how constitutional republics are supposed to function.

My Thoughts: Fiscal Irresponsibility Meets Political Hypocrisy

This proposition represents everything wrong with Sacramento's approach to governance: massive spending with no accountability, accounting gimmicks to hide the true costs, political posturing over principled governance, and manufactured emergencies to justify unconstitutional power grabs.

The $282+ Million "Emergency" That Was Planned Seven Months in Advance

Let's be crystal clear about the fiscal reality: California is facing a $20 billion structural deficit—meaning spending encased in current law outstrips revenue expectations by $15-20 billion annually for the foreseeable future.[8]

This deficit didn't come from Trump or external forces. It came from Newsom's $165 billion revenue projection error in 2022, when he claimed a $97.5 billion surplus that never existed and used that phantom money to dramatically increase spending.[9] Now taxpayers are stuck with the bill.

But here's what exposes this as a calculated political move, not an emergency response:

Newsom started raising money for Prop 50 in January 2025—a full seven months before the Legislature even introduced the measure in August.[30] Campaign finance records show donations to "Yes on 50, The Election Rigging Response Act, Governor Newsom's Ballot Measure Committee" dating back to January 14, 2025, well before Texas redistricting became an issue and months before Newsom publicly announced this "emergency" response.

This wasn't a spontaneous reaction to Texas. This was a pre-planned political operation disguised as an emergency. Newsom was fundraising for a ballot measure that didn't exist yet, for an "emergency" he would manufacture months later, all while California faced a $20 billion budget crisis.

To cover the current year's deficit, Newsom has:

Tapped $7.1 billion from emergency reserves (money meant for actual emergencies like earthquakes and wildfires)
Borrowed from special funds
Delayed spending
Employed accounting gimmicks
The Legislative Analyst's Office pegs total borrowing at $21 billion on and off the books[10]

And in the middle of this fiscal disaster—after telling Californians we didn't have funding for fire protection staffing or protocols following the horrific wildfires—Newsom wants to spend $282 million and climbing on a special election for a single ballot measure that could have waited until the regular November 2026 election.

Read that again: Newsom claimed California couldn't afford adequate fire protection before devastating wildfires struck. But he can find $282+ million for a manufactured political "emergency" to gerrymander congressional districts based on the lie that Texas is doing what courts actually ordered them to stop doing.

That's $282+ million that could have:

Funded the fire protection staffing, Newsom claimed we couldn't afford
Upgraded fire prevention protocols and emergency response systems
Restored cuts to healthcare services for the poor
Funded public safety programs
Addressed homelessness (ironically, given Newsom's $24 billion failed homelessness initiative)
Been saved to reduce the deficit

Instead, Newsom is spending it on his 2028 presidential campaign. Because that's what Prop 50 really is—a $282+ million campaign ad for Gavin Newsom's White House ambitions, funded by California taxpayers who can't afford fire protection.

The priorities are staggering: Political power comes before public safety. Partisan advantage matters more than protecting Californians from wildfires.

Newsom's 2028 Presidential Ambitions: The Real "Emergency"

For years, Newsom claimed "sub-zero interest" in running for president. He told NBC he had "never" considered it and had "no, no, no, no, no" interest because "who needs the damn stress?"[32]

That was a lie.

Since 2025, Newsom has:

Launched a podcast featuring MAGA personalities to "understand conservative voters"[33]
Traveled to South Carolina, a key Democratic primary state, to meet with local party leaders[34]
Publicly acknowledged he's "not thinking about running, but it's a path that I could see unfold"[35]
Positioned himself as the national "resistance leader" to Trump[36]
Built a donor network of over 65,000 contributors from all 50 states for Prop 50[37]
Told Stephen Colbert he fears "we will not have an election in 2028" unless Democrats take drastic action[38]

Political analysts are unanimous: Newsom is running for president in 2028, and Prop 50 is his campaign launch.[39]

PROP 50 FUNDING STARTED IN JANUARY 2025

The timing exposes everything: Newsom started fundraising for Prop 50 in January 2025—seven months before announcing this "emergency response" to Texas. He's been planning this all along, waiting for the right moment to manufacture a crisis that would let him play the hero fighting Trump on the national stage.

California is being used as a prop (pun intended) in Newsom's presidential ambitions. He's willing to:

Lie about why Texas redistricted (it was court-ordered, not partisan)
Spend $282+ million we don't have (during a $20B deficit and after claiming we couldn't afford fire protection)
Violate California's Constitution (five separate violations to get this on the ballot)
Abandon principles voters established (independent redistricting commission)
Create unconstitutional maps (likely to face federal court challenges)

All so he can tell Democratic primary voters in 2028: "I stood up to Trump when it mattered."

The cost? California's fiscal health, constitutional integrity, and the independent redistricting system we built. But Newsom gets his presidential campaign talking point.

Abandoning Principle for Presidential Ambition

Thomas Paine warned us that "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Proposition 50 embodies government at its worst—using the people's money to advance one politician's presidential ambitions.

In 2008 and 2010, California voters passed Propositions 11 and 20 to create an independent redistricting commission specifically to remove partisan politics from the mapmaking process. We did this because we believed in fair elections over political advantage.

Now, because Democrats see an opportunity to gain five congressional seats, Newsom asks us to throw away that principle. The message is clear: principles matter only when they benefit the party in power.

This is pure partisan gerrymandering, dressed up in the language of resistance and emergency response. The maps were drawn by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell and formally submitted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[11] Five currently Republican-held districts have been redrawn to favor Democrats based on 2024 presidential election results.[12]

If you believe gerrymandering is wrong when Republicans do it, you should oppose it when Democrats do it. Hypocrisy is not a governing philosophy.

The Constitutional Dumpster Fire

Mark Meuser, a constitutional attorney who ran for California State Senate in 2022, has laid out the critical constitutional problems with Proposition 50 that supporters desperately want voters to ignore. Meuser was part of two lawsuits filed before the California Supreme Court asking the Court to stop Proposition 50 before it went to voters because the California Legislature violated the California Constitution. Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court dismissed the writs without even deciding the merits.[19]

Myth #1: "Voter approval = automatic constitutionality"

FALSE. Courts strike down popular initiatives all the time if they violate the law. Remember Proposition 8 (the California Constitutional Marriage Amendment)? Voters passed it, courts later determined it was unconstitutional. The will of 51% of voters doesn't override constitutional protections.

Myth #2: "No voter approval = automatic unconstitutionality"

ALSO FALSE. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not mob rule. We elect representatives to pass laws. The legislature can't just ignore the California Constitution, and by Meuser's count, the California Legislature violated our Constitution in at least five different ways in introducing Prop 50.

Here's the critical distinction the "fighting Texas" narrative obscures: Texas law requires the Texas Legislature to draw congressional districts. When court rulings made their districts unconstitutional, the Legislature did what Texas law required them to do. California's Constitution prohibits the Legislature from drawing congressional districts—that power belongs exclusively to the Independent Redistricting Commission. The California Legislature broke the law to put Prop 50 on the ballot.[26]

The Critical Constitutional Problems:

Even if voters approve Prop 50, it doesn't fix the constitutional violations. Courts can subsequently determine that an initiative is unconstitutional, just like Prop 8. GOP lawmakers have already sued twice in the California Supreme Court over this, but the Court dismissed the writs without ruling on the merits—meaning the constitutional questions remain unresolved.[20]
The new maps raise serious Equal Protection concerns under the U.S. Constitution. Legal experts agree that race was a predominant factor in drawing many congressional districts. If Prop 50 passes, SCOTUS litigation is highly probable.[21] We could spend $282 million on maps that get thrown out by federal courts anyway.
The districts themselves are constitutional nightmares. The new maps would create bizarrely shaped districts that would frustrate the best Tetris players—packed and cracked to maximize partisan advantage rather than create coherent communities of interest. This violates both the spirit and letter of fair redistricting principles.

The devastating irony: When you see those weirdly-shaped Texas districts around Houston with tentacles reaching in all directions? Those are the 2021 coalition minority districts that federal courts ruled unconstitutional. That's what Texas is being forced to redraw and fix. And Newsom is using those unconstitutional districts as his justification to create California's equally convoluted Prop 50 maps. California is literally saying: "Look at those unconstitutional Texas districts! We need to make ours look like that, too!"[29]

The Legislature sought forgiveness instead of permission. Rather than asking voters for permission to draw maps before violating the Constitution, the Legislature violated the Constitution multiple times, then put a measure on the ballot asking voters to forgive them after the fact. This backwards approach to constitutional governance sets a dangerous precedent.[27]

The "Temporary" Lie

Supporters claim this is only temporary—just until after the 2030 census. This is the same promise politicians always make about taxes, fees, regulations, and power grabs. As I noted in my general proposition philosophy, once politicians have power, they never voluntarily give it back to the people.

If Prop 50 passes, it sets a dangerous precedent: whenever Sacramento Democrats feel politically threatened, they can override voter-approved constitutional safeguards by calling a special election and claiming an "emergency." This undermines the entire concept of constitutional protections.

Practical Futility

Even if you accept the premise that California should fight Republican gerrymandering with Democratic gerrymandering, Prop 50 likely won't work.

Multiple analyses point out that Republicans control more state legislatures nationwide, giving them the advantage in any nationwide redistricting war.[13] California cannot add enough Democratic seats to offset what Republicans can do in states they control. We're spending $282 million on a long-shot gamble.

As one analysis noted: "In a nationwide redistricting war Republicans have the advantage, because it is practically impossible for enough blue states to redraw their maps before the 2026 midterms to tilt the balance."[14]

Additionally, California ballot measures have a 63.84% failure rate since 1912. Historical data suggests Prop 50 has roughly a two-thirds chance of being rejected by voters anyway.[15]

The Bottom Line

Proposition 50 is a constitutional dumpster fire lit by D.C. and Sacramento insiders, fueled by taxpayer money we don't have, justified by misleading comparisons to Texas, and likely to be struck down by courts anyway.

Bottom line from attorney Mark Meuser, who laid out the complete legal timeline showing how we got here: "Prop 50 is a constitutional dumpster fire lit by D.C. and Sacramento insiders. Vote NO on Proposition 50."[22]

It asks California taxpayers to spend $282+ million and climbing (money Newsom claimed we didn't have for fire protection) during a $20 billion budget crisis created by Sacramento's incompetence, to abandon principles we voted for twice, based on a complete lie about why Texas redistricted, in order to pursue a partisan advantage that probably won't work anyway and may well be unconstitutional.

The "fighting Trump and Texas" narrative is a complete fabrication designed to hide multiple fundamental truths:

The weird Texas districts Newsom points to? Federal courts ruled them UNCONSTITUTIONAL - that's why Texas is redrawing them
Biden's DOJ sued Texas (and lost), forcing Texas to comply with court rulings on constitutional requirements
Texas was legally required to redistrict to fix unconstitutional districts; California has no such requirement
Texas law requires the Legislature to draw maps; California law prohibits it
Texas's new maps will increase diversity by replacing unconstitutional districts; California's Prop 50 maps decrease diversity
This is about power, not principle
Politicians drew their own districts after violating the state constitution multiple times
It abandons the independent redistricting system voters created while claiming to support independent redistricting
Newsom is using unconstitutional Texas districts as his model for what California should do
It will likely face federal Equal Protection challenges even if it passes
The California Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutional violations before sending this to voters

The next time someone tells you Newsom had to "Gavinmander" California to fight Trump and Texas, remind them:

Newsom's narrative is backwards: He claims Texas should keep the 2021 districts and is only removing them because of Trump
The truth: Those weird-looking 2021 Texas districts were ruled unconstitutional by federal courts
Texas is being legally required to fix those unconstitutional districts, not choosing to for political gain
Biden's DOJ sued to defend those districts and lost in court—that's what clarified they were unconstitutional
Newsom manufactured a fake "emergency" to justify spending $282+ million (money he claimed we didn't have for fire protection)
Newsom is using those court-condemned districts as his model for what California should do
California is redistricting for pure partisan gain while violating its own constitution
It's like pointing at a condemned building ordered demolished by inspectors and demanding California build one just like it[28]

If we believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, constitutional governance, and principled leadership, we must reject this proposition.

California can lead on independent redistricting by maintaining our commission, not by becoming just another state where politicians pick their voters instead of voters picking their politicians.

The answer to bad gerrymandering is not more gerrymandering. The answer to the fiscal crisis is not wasteful spending. The answer to political cynicism is not more political cynicism.

Vote HECK NO on Proposition 50.

Key Opposition Points

Supporters: Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic Congressional delegation (including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who co-signed the ballot argument), former President Obama, former VP Kamala Harris, labor unions, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Republican Party, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charles Munger Jr. (who helped create the original independent commission), members of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission itself[16]

Campaign Spending: Already over $140 million, making it the 7th most expensive ballot measure in state history with weeks remaining[17]

My Intensity Level: HELL NO - This combines fiscal irresponsibility with abandonment of core democratic principles, all wrapped in propagandistic rhetoric. It deserves emphatic rejection.