Gerrymander duelists, Newsom and Trump, deserve scorn for partisan power plays

This week I, along with millions of other Californians, received a one-page ballot for the Nov. 4 special election.

My initial reaction as I opened the envelope was anger, perhaps even disgust, that I and my fellow voters are being asked to ratify Proposition 50, a nakedly partisan power play by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators trying to grab additional congressional seats for their party.

They want us to set aside — perhaps temporarily, perhaps not — the work of an independent commission that four years ago drew the 52 current districts after months of hearings and discussions. Democrats have benefited greatly from that plan but now want to greatly reduce Republican-held seats to near-zero.

The election is costing taxpayers nearly $300 million out of a state budget that’s already billions of dollars out of balance, thus violating in spirit, if not in law, the state constitution’s prohibition of “gifts of public funds.”

Prop. 50, if enacted, is not only a gift to the Democratic Party as it jousts with Republicans for control of Congress over the next three election cycles, it also blatantly serves Newsom’s obvious intention to run for president in 2028.

However, President Donald Trump is equally deserving of disgust for his role in the gerrymander game. He claims, without evidence, that the 2020 election that denied him a second term was rigged, yet now he wants to rig the 2026 congressional elections.

Trump is asking red states to alter their congressional districts to give the GOP an advantage in the skirmish with Democrats over control of the House.

After Texas Republicans complied to gain five seats, Newsom countered with Prop. 50, which would approve districts that have been redrawn in secret, ignoring the fairness guidelines the independent commission followed.

The tit-for-tat duel symbolizes the perpetual power struggles that have replaced governance in the nation’s political system.

At the moment it appears that Prop. 50 will succeed. A new poll of 1,000 likely voters, conducted by the research firm co/efficient, found that 54% were supporting the measure, 36% were opposed and 10% were still undecided, reflecting the state’s pro-Democrat, anti-Trump voting history.

Eric McGhee, who charts political trends for the Public Policy Institute of California, says in a new analysis that passage of Prop. 50 could give Democrats 47 of the state’s 52 congressional seats, a gain of four, if every California district won by Kamala Harris last year also votes Democratic in 2026.

Democrats hope for a five-seat gain to offset the assumed five-seat loss in Texas. However, officials in at least six other red states are working on redistricting plans to increase Republican chances of maintaining House control in 2026. Meanwhile, other blue states have contemplated following California’s example, but the efforts don’t appear to be bearing fruit.

California’s gerrymander could have no effect on what happens in the 2026 congressional elections, but its effect on California could be heavy.

The new districts would be in place for three election cycles and, as written, Prop. 50 would disappear after the 2030 census, returning redistricting to the independent commission.

The California delegation is likely to lose four seats after the census due to very slow, if any, population growth. The five new Democratic members of Congress — Prop. 50 babies, as it were — would probably be reluctant to give up their seats. Therefore, the next governor and legislators would be under heavy pressure to maintain Democratic dominance of the delegation by retaining gerrymander power.

So how will my disgust about the entire process affect my vote —even if I resist the temptation to toss my ballot into the nearest wastebasket? I really don’t know.