The Brief

California is officially entering the nationwide redistricting battle.

The California Legislature officially passed a proposal Thursday to redraw the state’s congressional district boundaries in a way that would give Democrats an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. The move escalates tensions between California Democrats and President Donald Trump, who first urged Texas lawmakers to redraw their state’s maps to favor Republicans.

The measure passed 57 to 20 in the state Assembly and the state Senate passed it hours later 30-8, on a party-line vote.

Four of the districts that would be most heavily impacted under the plan are in Southern California.

Now the measure heads to a statewide ballot. It can’t go into effect unless California voters approve it in a special election on Nov. 4.

What does the proposal say?

The measure, officially titled the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would allow California to use new maps for congressional elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030.

If your district boundaries change under the new maps, you’ll be voting with a different group of people to elect a congressional representative for the next three elections.

Ordinarily, an independent commission — a politically balanced group of citizens who aren’t connected to political office — is in charge of drawing California’s congressional district maps. They do it once every 10 years based on the results of the U.S. Census. The next redistricting process wasn’t set to begin until after the 2030 Census.

This new measure temporarily interrupts that cycle and allows the new maps, designed by elected officials, to take effect for the next three election cycles. After 2030, the independent redistricting commission will take over the job again as usual.

Is my district affected?

Use this tool from our partners at CalMatters to enter your address and see if your new district would change under the proposal.

You can also read more from CalMatters on some of the districts most heavily affected, which include those represented by Ken Calvert in Riverside, Derek Tran in L.A. and Orange County, and Dave Min in Orange County.

Why are we voting on this?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom initiated this effort as a response to Trump’s actions in Texas.

In July, Trump began urging Texas lawmakers to redraw their state’s congressional maps to help retain more Republican representatives in Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans have a slim 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives right now, but in midterm elections, the balance of power historically tends to shift to the other party.

Like California, Texas, and other states aren’t supposed to redistrict until after the next census count in 2030. But under pressure from Trump, Republican lawmakers in Texas produced a draft map to take effect before the 2026 midterms and likely give Republicans an additional five seats in Congress. After a two-week standoff, the Texas House approved the new maps, and the state senate is expected to pass it as well.

Newsom, calling Trump’s move in Texas an effort to “rig” congressional elections next year, launched California’s redistricting effort as a way to neutralize the one in Texas.

Several other state leaders have expressed that they may join the redistricting fight, including in Florida, Missouri and Illinois.

Does voting ‘yes’ mean the measure will automatically take effect?

Not necessarily. This measure has explicit language that it would only kick in if another state moves ahead with their own mid-cycle redistricting effort. If Texas' new maps pass the state legislature, then California voters would just need to approve California's measure in November for it to take effect.

One potential disruptor would be the measure faces legal challenges that hold it up in court. This week a group of California Republicans filed a lawsuit against the proposal on technical grounds, but it was rejected by the California Supreme Court. Still, other lawsuits could crop up in the coming weeks.

Additionally, U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley of California's 3rd Congressional District introduced congressional legislation to prohibit mid-cycle redistricting nationwide. If that passes, it would nullify the newly drawn congressional maps in Texas, California and any other state that tries to do the same.

What do supporters and opponents say?

What supporters say: Newsom has described the plan as a way to neutralize Trump’s redistricting efforts in Texas. “We’re not going to roll over, and we’re going to fight fire with fire,” he said in a press conference earlier this month. Many Democratic members of Congress have expressed public support for the plan, including California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff.

Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College and a Democratic member of California’s independent redistricting commission, supports the effort, too.

“These are extraordinary times,” she said in an interview with Politico. “At this moment, I’m not so worried about California’s democracy. We have strong democratic institutions here in the state of California, but I’m also a political scientist, and at the national level, what we’ve seen over the last 10 or even 20 years is a backsliding and a decay of our institutions that should worry all of us.”

What skeptics say: Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for democratic reforms including independent redistricting, initially opposed Newsom’s plan. Darius Kemp, the group's executive director, called it a “dangerous move” in a press release, adding: “We can’t afford to put our state’s democracy on the line during a time of national instability.”

However, the group scaled back its opposition shortly afterward. In a statement, the group said it would not oppose Newsom’s plan if state lawmakers adhered to certain “fairness criteria.”

What opponents say: All nine members of California’s Republican congressional delegation oppose Newsom’s plan, arguing in a joint statement that it overrides the will of voters who approved the independent redistricting system.

State Assemblymembers Suzette Valladares and Kate Sanchez, both Republican co-chairs of the California Hispanic Caucus, are against the proposal, describing it in a statement as a “direct attack on millions of Californians’ right to fair representation.”

Several critics have also highlighted the cost of a special election, which State Assembly Republicans estimated could total around $235 million.

What can I do to prepare for the Nov. 4 election?

The special election is scheduled for Nov. 4. Here’s what you can do now to get ready:

• Check your registration. You can check your status at the California Secretary of State website here. 
• Register or update your registration. If you’re not registered or need to change your information, you can do that here. 

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

Far fewer employees than plan called for

Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

Institute facility will be built by 2028

The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

Institute would be exempt from public records act

CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.