November 3, 2025 - California voters are being asked to weigh in on Proposition 50, a measure that would temporarily pause the state’s independent redistricting process and allow the Legislature to draw new congressional district maps for the next election cycle. Supporters say it’s a necessary response to aggressive mid-cycle redistricting in other states, while critics warn it risks undermining California’s commitment to independent mapmaking and public trust.

To better understand the stakes, we sat down with Galen Sheely, a postdoctoral fellow at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy whose research focuses on election administration, redistricting, and democratic institutions. In this Q&A, he breaks down what Prop 50 would do, the arguments on both sides, and what it could mean for California’s representation and the national political landscape.

Could you describe in your own words the changes Proposition 50 would bring to California’s congressional redistricting process, and the problems or dynamics it is intended to address?

Proposition 50 would temporarily suspend California’s independent redistricting process and allow the Legislature to draw new congressional district maps for the next election cycle. The proposal is designed to add several safe Democratic seats as a countermeasure to mid-cycle partisan redistricting in Republican-led states like Texas. Supporters argue it aims to preserve fair national representation in the U.S. House, preventing scenarios where Democrats could win the popular vote yet still fail to gain control of the chamber due to partisan mapmaking elsewhere.

What are the strongest arguments you see in favor of Proposition 50? For example, how might it affect representation, accountability, or the balance of power in California’s congressional delegation?

Proposition 50 is seen by supporters as a safeguard against partisan gerrymandering in Republican-led states that could distort national representation in the U.S. House. By allowing California to adopt a temporary, legislatively drawn congressional map, the measure could help offset these imbalances and ensure fairer national outcomes — particularly as the Supreme Court appears likely to weaken protections under the Voting Rights Act. Unlike mid-cycle redistricting efforts in states like Texas, California’s revised maps under Prop 50 require voter approval and automatically expire in 2030, after which the state’s independent redistricting commission would resume its duties.

On the flip side: what are the most significant concerns or unintended consequences you associate with Proposition 50, such as impacts on independent redistricting, minority representation, public trust, or institutional stability?

While Proposition 50 would expire after the 2030 Census, it sets a troubling precedent by reopening the door to partisan redistricting in California — undermining the state’s long-standing commitment to independent mapmaking. The measure faces strong opposition from California Republicans, who stand to lose seats, and could further weaken the state’s already diminished GOP, reducing political competition and accountability. Critics also warn that even Democrats should value a viable opposition party to guard against the downsides of one-party dominance. Additionally, holding an off-cycle statewide election to approve the new maps is very expensive. 

Given your research focus on state election legislation and redistricting, what does the empirical evidence suggest about the effectiveness of proposals like Proposition 50 in achieving stated goals? Are there precedents or analogues you’d point to?

Empirical evidence shows that partisan gerrymanders — while long legal — are highly effective at entrenching political advantage, especially as modern data and statistical tools enable increasingly precise manipulation of district boundaries. In that sense, Proposition 50 fits within a long history of state legislatures using redistricting to advance partisan goals. However, unlike many recent maps drawn in Republican-led states, the proposed Prop 50 map does not significantly disrupt racial representation or compromise the geographical compactness of California’s districts. This suggests that while it mirrors the strategic logic of partisan gerrymandering, it does so with fewer distortions to representational fairness within the state.

If Proposition 50 passes (or fails), what do you see as the likely downstream consequences for California’s electoral landscape, and what should observers, policymakers or the public be watching over the next few years?

If Proposition 50 passes, it would likely create several new safe Democratic districts in California — seats that could become politically vulnerable or disappear entirely once the independent redistricting process resumes after 2030. This could lead to instability and tough decisions for incumbents in the next redistricting cycle. More broadly, observers should watch how national redistricting trends evolve, particularly as the Supreme Court considers Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and pave the way for more aggressive, racially driven gerrymandering in Republican-led states. Even with Prop 50’s sunset clause, partisan redistricting pressures nationwide are unlikely to subside.

Galen Sheely is the Research Director for the Voting Laws Roundup project at the Democracy Policy Lab at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, in partnership with the Brennan Center for Justice. His research focuses on the causes and consequences of state election legislation, with broader interests in legislative behavior, race and ethnic politics, and research methods

Source: UC Berkeley School of Public Policy