Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

California Considers a Reversal of Its Independent Redistricting Model

News

Map of California.

California Democrats are weighing a plan to redraw the state’s congressional map. The move would undo the voter-approved system created to take politics out of redistricting.

Getty Images, KeithBinns

California Democrats are weighing a plan to redraw the state’s congressional map. The move would undo the voter-approved system created to take politics out of redistricting. Governor Gavin Newsom has said he may call a special election this fall to ask voters for approval of a Legislature-drawn map if Texas moves forward with a midcycle redistricting plan expected to give Republicans more seats.

The proposal could flip up to five Republican-held districts and strengthen several competitive ones. Reports point to Orange County, San Diego County, and the Central Valley as primary targets. Republican representatives who could be affected include Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao, and Doug LaMalfa. Any change would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the Legislature, followed by approval from voters.


The proposal would mark a major departure from the system approved through Propositions 11 and 20 in 2008 and 2010. These measures created an independent citizens commission that removed redistricting power from lawmakers. The commission has been widely praised for its transparency. After the most recent redistricting cycle in 2021, no lawsuits were filed over the maps.

The opposition is already mobilizing. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the commission, has said he will actively campaign against the proposal. Civic groups such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters warn that reopening the maps midway through the decade could damage public trust and set a precedent that invites future political manipulation.

The legal landscape complicates the picture. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts cannot decide cases involving partisan gerrymandering. That leaves most redistricting challenges to state courts or to lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act that focus on racial discrimination in map design.

According to constitutional lawyer Nathaniel Maranwe, states have broad discretion when it comes to redistricting. “California can, legally speaking, redraw its congressional map for partisan reasons if it wants to,” he told The Fulcrum. “The Constitution gives states the power to set the times, places, and manner of elections. That includes partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it’s not for the courts to decide whether it goes too far.” Still, he added, “Most people would agree—or at least say they agree—that voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.”

Christopher Migliaccio, a lawyer and founder of Warren & Migliaccio, LLP, said the implications go well beyond California. “If the state overrides its voter-approved independent redistricting commission to redraw congressional maps, it would set a major precedent that a state can retract prior nonpartisan reforms in response to external partisan gerrymanders,” he said in an interview with The Fulcrum. “California’s system has been held up as a national model for transparency; to date, no lawsuits challenged its maps, a testament to its legitimacy. Dismantling it may alienate independents and weaken future bipartisan mapping efforts.”

Migliaccio also noted that California’s options for challenging maps in other states are limited. Since Rucho closed the door to federal courts on partisan gerrymandering claims, the most viable strategies rely on state constitutions or Voting Rights Act cases that focus on racial vote dilution rather than party advantage.

Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley said he plans to introduce legislation that would ban midcycle redistricting nationwide. His bill would invalidate maps drawn outside the regular census cycle, including proposals in Texas and California. He called Newsom’s effort a power grab that undermines the will of the voters. California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin echoed that concern, saying that any attempt to bypass the redistricting commission erodes public confidence and undermines reforms that were put in place for a reason.

The measure’s future depends on whether Democratic leaders can secure enough support in the Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot and whether Newsom follows through with a special election. Supporters argue that California should not allow other states to tilt the playing field unchallenged. Opponents warn the move could open the floodgates for both parties to dismantle independent processes whenever it suits them.

Several congressional districts are being watched closely. In Orange County, Democrats are eyeing changes to Young Kim’s CA 40 and looking to shore up districts held by Derek Tran in CA 45, Dave Min in CA 47, and Mike Levin in CA 49. In San Diego County, Issa’s CA 48 may be redrawn to include more Democratic voters, and Levin’s seat may also be adjusted.

Inland, Calvert’s CA 41 has grown more competitive in recent cycles. In the Central Valley, Democrats are targeting Valadao’s CA 22 and hoping to protect Adam Gray in CA 13. In northern California, Democrats may try to shrink margins in Kiley’s CA 3 and LaMalfa’s CA 1, though population density makes big changes difficult.

If California moves ahead, it would be the first large Democratic-led state to overturn a redistricting commission in response to partisan gerrymandering in other states. The outcome could reshape how redistricting reform is viewed nationwide and signal that no structure is safe from political pressure.


Alex Segura is a bilingual, multiple-platform journalist based in Southern California.

Read More

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep ReadingShow less