The stakes for a redistricting war differ between Newsom and Californians

Last week, as Gov. Gavin Newsom was signing legislation aimed at giving his Democratic Party five more congressional seats, contending that it would protect democracy, postal workers throughout the state were delivering a four-page flier denouncing the gerrymander as a threat to democracy.

Newsom declared that Democrats should “play hardball” in response to President Donald Trump’s drive for Texas and other red states to conduct their own gerrymanders to shore up the slender majority for Republicans in the House of Representatives.

“We tried to hold hands and talk about the way the world should be,” Newsom said. “We can’t just think differently, we have to act differently.”

The flier, however, featured a statement from Gloria Chun Hoo, president of the California chapter of the League of Women Voters, denouncing Newsom’s effort to set aside — temporarily, he promises — the districts drawn by an independent, bipartisan commission four years ago. The organization later emphasized it was not affiliated with the coalition that sent it.

“California has become a national model for independent redistricting,” Hoo’s statement read in the mailer. “Let’s protect the integrity of our democratic process and reject the dangerous idea of mid-cycle redistricting.”

So in a nutshell, that’s the issue before voters as they ponder the fate of Proposition 50 in a Nov. 4 special election. The flier delivered to voters last Thursday is just the beginning of what will be a tsunami of mail, text messages, emails, video spots and other propaganda for and against the measure, driven by tens of millions of dollars — perhaps hundreds of millions — by the two parties and their ancillary allies.

That assumes, of course, that Trump’s declared intention to block California’s measure with a Department of Justice lawsuit fails.

The stakes are enormous. The most obvious is whether Trump will continue to enjoy GOP control of both congressional houses, but there is also the effect on Newsom’s nascent campaign for the presidency in 2028.

Oddly, however, Newsom is fundamentally playing for a tie. Even if voters approve Prop. 50 and it generates five more Democratic members of Congress, it would merely offset the five-seat gain that Republicans seek in Texas through their own new maps. Whether any gerrymanders ultimately decide the 2026 election won’t be won in California or Texas but in the other states — both red and blue — that are also considering redistricting.

An all-out gerrymander war would appear to favor Republicans, the Wall Street Journal suggested recently.

“Republicans have one-party control or veto-proof majorities in more states and fewer guardrails around redrawing maps,” the reporter declares, adding, “More than a dozen red states and three blue states meet the conditions to potentially redistrict for 2026 without the need for a special election or amending the state constitution.”

Shawn Donahue, a political science professor at the University at Buffalo, told the Journal that Republicans would pick up as many as six House seats nationwide from a fully blown redistricting battle.

The scenario raises three questions about the Newsom-led redistricting drive in California.

Will voters do his bidding?

Would rejection of Prop. 50 torpedo his presidential ambitions? And if Democrats do gain California seats in 2026 but don’t recapture the House, would Newsom still benefit?

Victory in November is not a slam dunk. A new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, found support to be lukewarm: 48% among all voters and 55% among high-propensity voters. Professional campaign advisors who work ballot measures generally assume that proponents need about 60% initial support to have a strong chance of surviving the opposition campaign.

While Prop. 50 will be on the ballot, it will also be a proxy war for the transcontinental feud between Trump and Newsom, and to some extent, the rivalry between Newsom and other Democrats who may fancy themselves as 2028 presidential candidates.