I was not expecting a mid-cycle redistricting, nor did I expect the process to capture headlines and infiltrate conversations in the spaces it has. Streamers, podcasters and legacy media alike are sharing their views on the growing Texas vs. California tug of war for congressional seats, a fight that might eventually spill over into New York, Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Utah and more. We live in the illusion of a democracy, and what we are watching is another play for power.
Once the 2020 California Redistricting Commission completed its task in December 2021, I imagined a quiet eight years to finish my term. Creating these maps with five Republicans, five Democrats and four fellow commissioners unaffiliated with either party was a grueling duty set against the first pandemic in a century. Now, the maps have been sent back to the drawing board and the populace continues to become entrenched in information and misinformation about what redistricting is, why it happens and what implications arise from this process happening mid-cycle.
Gerrymandering isn’t new. States legislatures across the country have held the power to draw these controversial lines for decades — including in California until 2010. The shapes of each district could be set on the basis of political party, likelihood of voting behavior, race/ethnicity or even incarceration status, effectively allowing politicians to pick their constituents instead of the other way around. Even mid-cycle gerrymandering isn’t novel: Texas engaged in a contentious mid-cycle redistricting in 2003, redistributing the balance of power in the state’s delegation.
Meanwhile, California’s independent redistricting commission wasn’t mandated by the state Legislature, but rather established by a citizen-led effort. The people fought and demanded transparency for the process and eventually cemented it into California’s Constitution through voter-approved propositions in 2008 for state Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization; and in 2010 for California’s congressional districts.
While it’s important to understand the genesis of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, Senate Bill 280 and Assembly Bill 604 — each passed in late-August and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — there’s no need to understand at a deeper level what data went into generating the newly proposed maps. The goal of shifting power right to left has been made utterly transparent.
It’s not fair that mid-cycle redistricting could happen in California when state voters gave the power for this once-in-a-decade task to an independent commission. But politics in America has rarely been concerned with fairness. It’s a fight for control, even if that fight has created questions and established doubt that could undermine the process for future redistricting cycles. The maps we initially drew were based on listening to hours of community testimony, drafting and redrafting boundaries based on legal guidelines and Community of Interest input, building consensus across the commission, all while our work was livestreamed and open to the public. We did not consider political affiliation or voting history in these maps, which ultimately gave birth to some of the most competitive congressional races in California’s history.
At the same time, it’s difficult to argue that Newsom’s approach to mid-cycle redistricting is unfair, even if the proposed maps are clearly gerrymandered. Similar to many other propositions, this one follows a standardized process, and the decision to adopt new maps is now left to voters, many of whom are not blind to the naked partisanship on display.
But this current tug of war proves that independent redistricting must be federally mandated, and can no longer be left to individual states to opt in or out. For two consecutive cycles, California has embraced equity and transparency while states like Texas entrench partisan advantage, creating an asymmetry that forces an uncomfortable strategic question: Does taking the high road matter when your opponents are willing to play dirty? California Democrats cannot compel universal independent redistricting through moral example alone, leaving the state stuck in a devil’s bargain between continuing to play by different rules while ceding congressional influence, or temporarily abandoning the high ground through 2030, and banking on discovering the leverage needed to force a comprehensive federal solution to this persistent problem.
Proposition 50 is asking Californians’ permission to implement the new maps via the ballot box on Nov. 4. This vote isn’t simply about halting the current administration. It’s an attempt to deliberately transfer political power, a shift that comes with both opportunity and responsibility. This current administration has revealed to the masses the full extent of a government’s power and its consequences. A “Yes” on Prop 50 is not just a rejection of this administration’s further power grab, but a demand for change from the next administration. If the Democratic Party wants to see the outcomes of this effort, if it wants to restore and expand civil rights, implement universal healthcare, end our complicity in endless wars and fix a fundamentally broken system masquerading as progress, it first needs to reclaim power and wield it boldly.
The current political climate presents a rare opportunity for Democrats to show that they can be resolute in their pursuit to fight for the people. How they actually take advantage of this moment remains to be seen.
Isra Ahmad is a sitting commissioner on the 2020 California Redistricting Commission. She is a no party preference (NPP) voter.
The post Contributor: You’re voting in a rigged game. That’s why Prop 50 matters appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
