How Trump Triggered California's Redistricting Fight
Don't believe the GOP's 'principled' opposition to Prop. 50

One of the funniest types of people I meet in political circles are those who take all sorts of cheap partisan positions, then suddenly invoke some Deep Principle on a matter—as if any of us believe them to be motivated by a consistent political philosophy. As confirmation of their cynicism, you'll find the "principle" always aligns with their partisan interest.
You'll see many office-holding Republicans take that transparent tack these days, as they declare the evils of Proposition 50, the temporary mid-decade redistricting proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot. Pick almost any state GOP official and you'll find some overheated statement about why the Democrats' hastily drawn proposed new maps rig congressional races and undermine the initiative that created an independent redistricting commission for Congress.
And they won't be wrong. But here are some points you won't hear from them: A serious explanation about why Democrats put the measure on the ballot—or a condemnation of the multiple Republican-controlled legislatures in other states that are taking the exact same approach. They won't criticize the one politician who triggered this nonsense.
That's President Donald Trump, who urged Texas and other Red States to redistrict before the end of the decade in a shameless attempt to help the GOP pick up additional seats as we head toward the midterm elections. The Republican Party holds a slim House majority, so a slight shift can slow its agenda.
As the president posted on Truth Social: "Big WIN for the Great State of Texas!!! Everything Passed, on our way to FIVE more Congressional seats and saving your Rights, your Freedoms, and your Country, itself. Texas never lets us down. Florida, Indiana, and others are looking to do the same thing."
This isn't as ominous as, say, the GOP effort to steal the 2020 presidential election with absurd claims, bad lawyers and a mob attack on the Capitol. But it's yet another GOP assault on democratic norms. Prop. 50 is the Democrats' attempt to neuter these ill-gotten GOP gains. It's not good, but it's justifiable. It's temporary, with the redrawing heading back to the commission in 2030.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R–Calif.) acted in a principled way when he proposed a bill that would ban mid-decade redistricting nationwide to stop the redistricting wars. Even though he stood to gain personally (his seat is at risk if voters approve Prop. 50), that was the sensible approach. The bill has stalled given the Trump-dominated GOP.
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also was principled when he urged a "no" vote on Proposition 50, as he's one of the few Republicans who has also complained about Trump's anti-democratic shenanigans. In 2008, Schwarzenegger led the charge for Proposition 11, which applied the new independent district-drawing to state legislative races. In 2010, he supported Proposition 20, which did so for congressional boundaries.
Independent redistricting was a great reform. Democrats appallingly gamed the system early on by inserting their activists (rather than fair-minded community members) on the map-drawing panels. The system didn't necessarily create more competitive districts as promised, but it did ultimately create districts that are more fairly drawn and eliminated the sleazy backroom dealing.
I dislike election reforms that try to achieve specific results, such as electing moderates (the goal of California's controversial Top Two primary system) or, in this case, yield more Republican or Democratic representatives. True election reforms should improve representation—e.g., help assure that those elected better represent the interests of voters who elect them.
I have long favored increasing the number of state legislators. California has the worst ratio of voters to elected officials in its Assembly (one rep for every 483,000 voters v. one for every 3,290 in New Hampshire, which has the best ratio.) Lower ratios mean politicians who are more accountable and accessible. Fixing that problem is better than the plan by former Assembly GOP Leader James Gallagher (R–Yuba City) to break the state in two—a fun thought experiment, but an unserious idea.
Republicans are right, however, that the rural North State already gets short shrift in a delegation dominated by urban interests. One of Prop. 50's maps would put conservative Siskiyou County voters in the same district with liberal Marin County voters. You can guess based on population numbers who gets the short end of that stick.
But none of this is remotely related to any democratic principle. It's about the parties using any tools at their disposal to gain more seats. In this case, the Republicans started it, which left the Democrats with the choice of rolling over or fighting back. Given how the Trump administration is sending troops to U.S. cities and unleashing ICE on the citizenry, I certainly understand why it's on the ballot. I'd be more inclined to side with Republicans on the Prop. 50 debate if they, you know, showed a more principled adherence to the Constitution.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"I'd be more inclined to side with Republicans on the Prop. 50 debate if they, you know, showed a more principled adherence to the Constitution."
I'm calling bullshit on that, Steve.
Like other editors, he found the odd numbered answer in the back of the textbook and worked backwards.
OK, he'd reluctantly and strategically vote for the Democrat if Republicans showed a more principled adherence to *T*he Constitution... and his vote mattered.
One of the funniest types of people I meet in political circles are those who take all sorts of cheap partisan positions, then suddenly invoke some Deep Principle on a matter—as if any of us believe them to be motivated by a consistent political philosophy.
Cocktail parties that Reasonistas get invited to attend might not be indicative of many in the US. These deplorables value individual liberty, limited govt, and oppose the rainbow cult, globohomo, and open boarders agenda of team D and Daddy Warbucks oligarchs such as your psymaster.
The irony of Greenhut writing this from California is too pointed to be believed.
It's pure projection of himself and the rest of the Reason Leftist liberaltarians. They have no principles except defending current thing and the Democrats that push it.
In this case, the Republicans started it, which left the Democrats with the choice of rolling over or fighting back.
The correct choice was roll over. You're cooked and you know it. Everything - every single thing - you've done since Barack left office has been scorched earth.
I guess his mother never taught him that two wrongs don't make a right?
That's a solid principle.
Democrats have been gerrymandering in blue states for years. Of the 52 House seats from California 9 are Republican, a 17% result for the 40% that voted for Trump last year. In Texas 13 of 39 representatives are Democrat - 33% - and the redistricting will probably reduce that to 9, or 24%. 43% of the state voted for Harris. California hopes to further reduce Republican Representatives to 4, or 8% of the 52.
What pisses off Democrats is Republicans doing what Democrats have done for decades, even if not doing it as thoroughly.
Every study on political gerrymandering shows democrat states are far worse. See Massachusetts for a grand example.
Youre retarded greenhut.
Greenhut, the entire reason the gop can gain any more seats than the dems in this fight is because democrats have already maximized their gains through prior efforts. Steven is not intelligent.
Can't wait for his cries after scotus reforms the VRA and race based distracting.
Every study on political gerrymandering shows democrat states are far worse.
Well that's just a lie. Most research show R's gain more by gerrymandering.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-gerrymandering-tilts-2024-race-house?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/gerrymandering-study-umd?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Absurd articles that only look at the last 4 years of republican response to the last 50 years of Democrat abuse I'm not sure why you thought this old help your point lol.
What do you think my point was? Because you clearly missed it.
My point here was that Jesse lies (or at best speaks confidently on topics on which he is ignorant) to craft pro-GOP narratives. Every study on political gerrymandering shows democrat states are far worse. And I posted 2 links (seems to be Reason's limit) that show that.
But I get your point. What's happening now is irrelevant when we can focus on the past and blame the other side to justify our own bad behavior ...even if you included 0 supporting evidence to back that up.
Are you familiar with the Redmap plan?
Brennan? LMFAO
How about the journal Electoral Studies?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379416303201
or Legislative Studies Quarterly
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsq.12448
Duh. And, uhm, water is wet.
When the D's have rigged the system to their favor for so long, they naturally reach a point of diminishing returns. Thus, any gain by R's thru gerrymandering will produce greater immediate returns until they reach parity. Beyond that, the calculus flips.
Even if you take these at face value, which I wouldn’t necessarily, Republicans gaining more seats does not mean they do it harder or in a worse fashion.
Especially when you take into account that:
a. Democrats have basically squeezed every drop of blood from that stone that they can in most places.
And
b. Interstate immigration patterns show that blue states are hemorrhaging people to red states, so even if you only take into account the last 5-10 years of this going on, it’s going to look skewed just based on demographic shift.
I say we remove the unconstitutional cap on representatives and really open this motherfucker up. The Capitol building should look like the Senate in the Prequel Trilogy.
Fuck you. Mass is not a gerrymandering hell hole. (I was born in Illinois)
https://www.wwlp.com/news/massachusetts/brownsberger-gop-friendly-mass-congressional-district-just-not-a-thing/
Lol.
I think he was saying it’s not a hellhole because he was born in Illinois so it looks like a toddler with an ice cream cone in comparison.
The Democrat's approach to political gamesmanship is entirely utilitarian, so the Greenhuts of political reporting give them a pass. If you have no principles, you do not get called out for not living up to any principles.
He's not retarded, he's evil. He knows these things but lies to maintain Democrat power to mutilate children and generally violate the Constitution and the rights of US citizens.
One of the funniest types of people I meet in political circles are those who take all sorts of cheap partisan positions...
How Trump Triggered California's Redistricting Fight
Yup, you asshats are funny. Like, does this fish smell funny.
Zero self-awareness
Funny how? Funny like a clown?
There is nothing in The Constitution of The United States of America that prevents mid-census redistricting, and as I understand it (and my understanding could be wrong, is that Texas law allows for it) and after the migration of citizens into Texas during the corona flu lock-downs and other insane policies enacted by other states, maybe it makes sense as population density within Texas may have shifted. California law contains no such provisions allowing for mid-census redistricting, thus the the special election and Prop 50.
I have a far better (albeit never, never, never in eleventy billion years going to happen) idea: Return the size, scope, and reach of the Government of The United States to the fours corners of the The Constitution of The United States of America, specifically the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, and it will matter far less.
California actually had a voter referendum to stop political redistricting (at least in name as the "independents" on the commission are just democrats). So prop 50 undoes the will of the voter in California.
As a California resident I am well of this and as my comment was focused on the mid-Census redistricting component, I didn't feel the need to include the "independent" commission in the comment, because the "independent" commission does a good job of gerrymandering all on its own, without the governor and legislature pulling the shenanigans of Prop 50, which despite all the promises made, will not return the redistricting to the "independent" commission after the 2030 Census.
It does not negate the main point of my comment:
Return the size, scope, and reach of the Government of The United States to the fours corners of the The Constitution of The United States of America, specifically the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, and it will matter far less.
The quote has nothing to do with districting which puts the power, aside from uniform laws passed by congress, in state legislative branches.
I disagree.
If the Government of The United States is returned to the four corners of the The Constitution of The United States of America, specifically the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, the Congressional district gerrymandering done by Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, or any of the other States, will matter far less than it does now, as the scope of the laws passed by Congress will be constrained to those powers and will have far less reach:
At the national level:
The California delegation would not able be able throw its weight around to secure funding for the magic choo choo train.
The Illinois delegation would not able be able throw its weight around to bail out it's union pension funding problems.
The progressives would not be able throw their weight around and tell every State what kind of light bulb or shower head or car they can purchase.
There would be, theoretically, no 1,000 page bills that nobody has read and which contain a whole bunch of pork barrel provisions to secure votes. Example: "If you give me X billion dollars for a bridge in San Francisco, I'll give you Y billion dollars for your museum and we can both vote for the bill and claim, 'Well, I didn't like some of the provisions, but look at the largess I bought back to our district for that bridge, so vote for me.' "
Many current departments, bureaus, agencies to which Congress has delegated rule making and used to impose national standards would be eliminated
An added bonus:
At the State level:
The California Legislature, or the voters of California via Proposition process, could enact laws mandating what kind eggs, chickens, or pork could be raised in the State of California, but could not enact laws mandating out-of-state producers of eggs, chickens, pork follow the same requirements if they wish to sell their product in the State and the consumers and market forces in California will determine which products they purchase, which would hopefully lead to the repeal of such in-state producer requirements as the in-state producers would be harmed by the market and consumer choice, and the in-state producers would demand repeal of the requirements as they would be at a competitive disadvantage.
specifically the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, and it will matter far less
I have yet to find many people (certainly zero partisan DeRps) who agree both:
1) that Congress should be restricted to enumerated powers and
2)that Presidential executive power should be restricted to ONLY the laws of Congress passed within those enumerated powers.
As I wrote: (albeit never, never, never in eleventy billion years going to happen)
Agreed, and up the ante:
3) Amend the Constitution to the effects that:
* Total compensation to elected officials shall be tied to, and capped at, the median income of their district for Representatives, their State for Senators, and the US as a whole for the President and Vice President. This shall be recalculated annually prior to the start of the next fiscal year and is not subject to legislative modification.
* Representative and Senate per diem and travel expenses shall be paid at the same rate as military personnel of the pay grade of E9.
* Eliminate all retirement benefits and/or pensions for elected officials.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elected office should never be a career. Nor should it be a vehicle for enriching oneself. If congress critters want to earn more while they are in office, then they must work to improve the economic condition of their district/state,
As far as ponies and rainbows go, this is a damn good one!
> It may be helpful for you and Joanna to connect
Trump got 56% of the vote in Texas, 2024.
The GOP holds 66% of the congressional seats.
The new map is intended to give the GOP 79% of the congressional seats.
This is a huge "fuck you" by the governor to 44% of Texans.
The Electoral College itself is power-gerrymandered via state control of how those EC votes are awarded. I constantly hear (from Californians and other big states) about how much they are screwed by WY because WY gets 3 EC votes (1 EC vote for every 190,000 citizens) v CA getting 54 EC votes (1 EC vote for every 730,000 'citizens').
And yet the people who are really screwed by Californians are their fellow Californians. Because they award all 54 EC votes to, say, the 55% majority (or 1 EC vote for every 400,000 of their 'citizens') and 0 EC votes to the 21 million CA citizens who didn't vote for the majority there.
Those disenfranchised 'voting minorities' in CA (and all large states) then become complete assholes to everyone else in the US because they have no governance power in their own state. That is imo a major reason so much power has become centralized to the feds while states legislatures themselves are corrupted and gerrymandered.
Now tell us about the ratio in blue states dumdum.
Trump got 56% of the vote in Texas, 2024.
The GOP holds 66% of the congressional seats.
The new map is intended to give the GOP 79% of the congressional seats.
This is a huge "fuck you" by the governor to 44% of Texans.
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
As to the first two points (Trump 56% of vote/Republicans 66% of Congressional seats) I'm sure there is some level of gerrymandering going on in the 2024 map, but is it possible there was ticket splitting going on? Harris or Green Party or Oliver voters who voted for the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives (highly unlikely for the first two cohorts, but still possible), or did not vote in the Congressional race because there was only a Republican on the ballot?
I do not think it's an issue in Texas; however, the problem with looking at percentages like that in California (setting aside the gerrymandering that does occur and will only be exacerbated in Prop 50 passes) is our screwy "jungle" primary system which often results in the choice between a "Squad" style Progessive and a slightly less crazy Democrat in the general election so from a percentage of votes cast, the total US Senate votes cast will almost always be 100% Democrat, and the percentage of total House of Representative votes cast will skew higher to the Democrats than the Presidential breakdown either due to ticket splitting (somebody choosing the Republican Presidential candidate and the slightly less crazy Democrat in the House race) or sitting out the House race and not casting a vote.
If the gerrymandering imposed in Texas was only at the Congressional level, the voters may have the ability to use the next election cycle to change the composition of the State Legislature, resulting in different maps later.
"I'd be more inclined to side with Republicans on the Prop. 50 debate if they, you know, showed a more principled adherence to the Constitution."
More-than who? Democrats?
You have your answer.
Humorously; This whole article reads-out as the GOP has 'principles' so Demon-rats have to fight back. If you can't draw a conclusion from that assertion you've lost your way before you even started.
Steven is trying to go with Republicans did it first but is ignorant of what happened prior to this year.
Consistent with the Left having no history.
It should be noted that the ballots for this show what you voted for from the outside of the envelope. Fuck you reason. Fuck you very much
Along with mass reports of ballots for dead people and people who have moved. Numerous reports of multiple ballots.
or a condemnation of the multiple Republican-controlled legislatures in other states that are taking the exact same approach.
This is exactly why partisan gerrymandering cases should generally get very broad standing in federal court. Gerrymandering is not about pretending that voters have the power to change their state legislature. They don't even if SC justices are deliberately stupid about that. It is not about the notion that state control of elections has no effect on anything outside the state (read - the rights of US citizens),
Not only should CA have the ability to contest gerrymandering in CA. People in CO should have the ability to contest gerrymandering in both CA AND TX because the gerrymandering in those two states harms voters in CO (a state which is generally not gerrymandered).
The outcome of CA and TX and other gerrymanderers is that control of Congress itself is determined BEFORE the election. So a voter elsewhere has an equal power as anyone to vote for their own representative but their district has no power to be the marginal vote that might control Congress.
If [D]emocrats would adhere to the definition of a USA there wouldn't be a problem.
All your concerns are wrapped-up in ILLEGAL ! [Na]tional ! So[zi]al[ism].
To whom in the constitution does it give power to for means and manner of elections dumdum.
That's an artifact of a partisan lens.
If everyone is a Republican, then no one is a Republican...
Wut?
I might believe something Greenhut writes if he weren't a TDS-addled lying pile of slimy shit.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Every article. His primary audience isn't Americans or libertarians, it's the predominant political alignment of Orange County.
Remmber, the Democrats only began saying gerrymandering was a problem when the Republicans started having control of a majority of state legislatures.
Cite?
That's rich, coming from a slimy pile of lying lefty shit who constantly posts assertions, as if they had any value at all.
>In this case, the Republicans started it, which left the Democrats with the choice of rolling over or fighting back.
So Texas wasn't gerrymandered over explicitly racial lines? As an excuse to give tru Democrats two extra seats? Which excuse the Dems used as a political tool and not because of any deep seated principle?
If only the GOP just rolled over like it used to them we wouldn't have this culture war - it's all their fault.
Don't believe... for a moment that Reason would ever present a positive viewpoint toward anyone other than extreme progressives and psycho leftists...
Newsom started collecting donations for the prop 50 campain in January before Trump even took office. the Texas Redistricting was just a convinent excuse to go full public with it.. Note the redistricting is not just one election cycle its teh next three election cycles which skips the next regular redistricting which leaves the democrat created boundaries for the next 14 years
"...Note the redistricting is not just one election cycle its teh next three election cycles which skips the next regular redistricting which leaves the democrat created boundaries for the next 14 years..."
IOWs, the typical D "temporary".
Sorry. Arnie pissed his reputation down the toilet when he screamed "fuck your freedoms" during Covid.
It seems terminator was a scared little bitch during Covid and ran to the Authoritarian "protections" of the psycho left.
There's no coming back Arnie. You burned that bridge behind you screaming like a scared child.
Yet another reason to eliminate voting districts.
I have no problem with districts but they need to be regional not racial or politically arrainged. Mountain area vs desert vs coastal area and big city population vs equal rural population are what the goal should be
Two Hamas hostage takers and an Israeli hostage voting on who is getting executed that evening?
Two antifa terrorists and a store owner voting on whose store is getting burned that evening?
Two trantifa activists and a conservative debater voting on who is getting assassinated the next day?
The better idea is to eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering no matter how the districts are drawn. Random selection of one person (or two or three or X - doesn't matter) in that district to be the critter. Doesn't matter how the district lines get drawn. Every gerrymandering 'tactic' will fail.
[deleted]
Green hot, you stupid mendacious fvck, the only reason TX is restricting is because the Ds sued them over the last map. They wield the VRA as a cudgel to maximize D districts, and rely on retards like KBJ to give it them what they want in court.
TX is now redistricting to maximize Latino districts fwiw, the VRA only cares if you lose a majority black district
...
What if those voters are assholes?
I wouldn't mind playing politics as a fair game if it had no real world consequences or affected only those who voluntarily joined it. But as long as those conditions don't apply, I want it totally crooked in my favor. I see no reason to give the assholes an even break.
D or R isn't the heart of the conflict here. It's two children, holding powerful office, acting like petulant children. And the rest of us sitting on our hands and doing nothing to get them to behave.
It would be laughable if it didn't have such a serious impact on the rest of us.
One of the funniest types of people I meet in political circles are those who take all sorts of cheap partisan positions, then suddenly invoke some Deep Principle on a matter—as if any of us believe them to be motivated by a consistent political philosophy. As confirmation of their cynicism, you'll find the "principle" always aligns with their partisan interest.
That is hypocrisy at its peak.