For the better part of two decades, California’s elections have been freer and fairer because the state doesn’t allow for the gerrymandering of political districts. I like to think I am in large part responsible.
Working alongside former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, I helped rally support for a pair of ballot measures in 2008 and 2010 that transferred the power to draw districts away from politicians and gave it instead to an independent commission of citizens. I contributed millions to supporting the measures; on the second, I was not only the largest donor but also a drafter and the lead organizer.
I am deeply disturbed that my state is considering a return to the days when a single party had unchecked power to draw lines that entrenched its power. Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California State Legislature have placed Proposition 50 on a Nov. 4 special election ballot. If passed, it would replace the current U.S. House districts drawn by the independent commission and used in 2022 and 2024 with districts drawn by party insiders behind closed doors. The new map would be in place for the rest of this decade.
The idea behind the effort is that it will help balance Texas’ effort to gerrymander its congressional districts. Texas’ new map, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday, is expected to net Republicans five additional U.S. House seats.
I oppose gerrymandering in any state, regardless of the party responsible for initiating it. Democrats and independents nationally are right to be outraged at the mid-decade partisan gerrymander of Texas, but returning to the evils of partisan gerrymandering in California is not the solution.
The last time California politicians drew the political maps, for the elections of 2002 to 2010, they chose to give every politician a safe seat. As a result, in the 2004 elections not one incumbent lost, and only five of 153 legislative and congressional races were decided by less than nine percentage points. Those maps were a blatant abuse of democracy.
The path from there to reform was not an easy one. After an earlier reform effort failed, I helped Mr. Schwarzenegger pass Proposition 11 in 2008, which created an independent redistricting commission. Two years later I co-wrote Proposition 20, which expanded the commission’s authority to draw California’s congressional districts. The campaign to pass Proposition 20 attracted one of the most politically diverse coalitions in state history, including Democrats, Republicans, good government organizations and community groups from across the state. Californians approved it with more than 61 percent of the vote, a decisive victory for fair districts and accountable government.
Ever since 2010 I have worked to repel any assault on this vital reform. After the new independent California redistricting commission approved its maps, the California Republican Party helped support a challenge to them in the state Supreme Court. As the initiative’s proponent, I fought back and won.
Now politicians in Sacramento are asking voters to approve a partisan gerrymander of California, developed in secret and in back rooms, as supposedly the only way our democracy can balance what’s happening in Texas or restrain President Trump after the 2026 midterms. (They don’t mention that the members of Congress elected in 2028 and 2030 in the gerrymandered districts will serve their terms under a different president.)
There is another way. Democratic politicians should seek to channel voter outrage at Texas Republicans’ efforts to game the system into election results. By doing so, they could flip hitherto unreachable seats currently held by Republicans and overcome the Texas gerrymander. But if Democratic politicians try to gerrymander California, then they lose the moral high ground.
Districts drawn by independent, citizen-led commissions often include more districts that are competitive between the parties. Those districts are sensitive to voter concerns, and so help hold politicians accountable for unpopular policies. Because those districts do not entrench one party or the other, many of them can flip at a time.
If our nation devolves into competing efforts to gerrymander, we will lose the ability to fight back against overreach by either party. Sadly, instead of focusing on flipping seats, Governor Newsom has chosen to undermine one of California’s most significant reforms.
Given Mr. Newsom’s chosen course, I faced two difficult options.
I could stand down and let California’s dominant party manipulate the state’s district boundaries, which will signal to the nation that redistricting reform and representative government can quickly vanish in any state with one-party control of both the legislature and the governor’s office.
Or I could oppose Mr. Newsom’s plan, accepting that if successful I would be labeled a cat’s paw for Republicans seeking to gain additional House seats.
I’m choosing the latter option. As a fifth-generation Californian, I am organizing the campaign to oppose Proposition 50, to help California voters preserve free and competitive elections and to give redistricting reform a chance to survive its trial by fire. Even if my opposition fails, I will have given the people an informed choice about Proposition 50, despite the unusually brief window of 75 days between when Mr. Newsom’s proposal left the state capitol and when it appears on the ballot.
Gerrymanders are a cancer, and mid-decade gerrymanders are a metastasis. If we trade away California’s independent redistricting for a partisan power grab, we kill the cure. We send a dangerous message to the rest of the country that reform is conditional, and principles can be abandoned when they are inconvenient. That is how cynicism spreads, trust in government erodes and citizen voices fade. True reform must withstand the temptations of political advantage and the pressures of the moment. California’s commission was created to rise above those temptations — and we must defend it now or watch the promise of fair representation collapse into just another broken pledge.
Charles T. Munger Jr. is a physicist, a political donor and a campaigner who helped lead California’s 2008 and 2010 redistricting reforms.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Gerrymandering Is Bad, No Matter Who’s Doing It appeared first on New York Times.
