The Brief

Californians are voting in a special election Nov. 4 with just one statewide item on the ballot: Proposition 50, a measure to allow newly redrawn congressional maps to take effect for the next three elections.

This measure is just one part of a larger nationwide battle over control of the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections, but it also affects who will get elected to represent you and your community in government.

What your vote means

A "yes" vote means: California will use new congressional maps drawn by Democratic state officials to elect congressional representatives in 2026, 2028 and 2030. 

A "no" vote means: Nothing will change. California will continue to use existing congressional maps drawn in 2021 by the state independent redistricting commission for all congressional elections through 2030. 

In either scenario, the state’s independent redistricting commission would once again be in charge of drawing new congressional district maps after 2030.

Understanding Prop. 50

This measure is all about redistricting, the process of drawing boundaries on a map that determine who’s included in your political district. Those geographic lines determine who gets to vote to elect your representatives in government.

Proposition 50 is specifically about boundaries for congressional districts, which affect who gets elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and which party ends up controlling the House. Republicans have a slim 219-212 majority in the House right now, but in midterm elections, the balance of power historically tends to shift.

Normally, redistricting happens once every 10 years, after the U.S. Census, to reflect population changes. California and other states weren’t supposed to redistrict again until after the next census in 2030.

But this year, with encouragement from President Donald Trump, the Texas state Legislature approved new maps that would give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. Democratic leaders, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, criticized the move as an attempt to “rig” next year’s elections.

Newsom then launched the effort behind Proposition 50 to give Democrats a similar advantage in California’s congressional elections and effectively cancel out Texas’ move. California’s state Legislature approved the new maps in August.

Unlike Texas, however, redistricting in California is supposed to happen through an independent redistricting commission — a politically balanced group of citizens who are not connected to political office. Voters approved the nonpartisan system in 2008, so they need to approve any proposed changes to it. That’s why Proposition 50 is on the ballot this year.

Which districts would be affected?

Most California district boundaries would change to a degree with the new congressional maps.

In Southern California, just five out of 30 districts would remain unchanged.

However, the political effects would be stronger in some districts than others. The following Southern California districts would see the biggest changes, turning safe Republican areas into swing districts or swing districts into Democratic-leaning ones:

• CA-27 in northern L.A. County, currently represented by Democratic Rep. George Whitesides.
• CA-41 in Riverside County, currently represented by Republican Rep. Ken Calvert.
• CA-45 in L.A. and Orange counties, currently represented by Democratic Rep. Derek Tran.
• CA-47 in Orange County, currently represented by Democratic Rep. Dave Min.
• CA-48 in San Diego, currently represented by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa.

You can input your address in the tool below, created by our partners at CalMatters, to check where you live and whether your congressional district would change if voters approve the ballot measure.

You can also do a side-by-side comparison of the existing map and the new one proposed under Proposition 50.

How it would work

Proposition 50 is temporary. If passed, California would use the newly drawn maps for congressional elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030. That means if your district changes under the new maps, you’ll be voting with a different group of people to elect a U.S. representative for the next three elections.

After 2030, the independent redistricting commission would once again draw congressional district maps that would be in place for the next decade’s elections.

What people who support it say 

Proposition 50 has support from Newsom and many other prominent Democratic leaders in state and federal government, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Zoe Lofgren and Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff.

Proponents say Proposition 50 is a necessary response to what they describe as Trump’s attempt to undermine democracy by giving Republicans an unfair advantage in the midterm elections. If California doesn’t act, they say, the redistricting move in Texas and potentially other Republican-led states could lead to Republicans retaining control of the House in next year’s elections and passing more of Trump’s agenda without reflecting the true will of voters.

Supporters argue that passing Proposition 50 would neutralize the redistricting effort in Texas and that, since the measure sunsets after 2030, it stays committed to California’s independent redistricting system in the long run.

Read more arguments from supporters below:

• Yes on 50 official campaign website

What people who oppose it say

Members of California’s Republican leadership, including Southern California House Reps. Ken Calvert, Young Kim and Darrell Issa, and the Republican caucuses in both chambers of the state Legislature, have come out against Proposition 50.

Other opponents include former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office, and Charles T. Munger,Jr., a Palo Alto-based physicist who has contributed significant funding toward the opposition campaign.

Opponents have generally characterized Proposition 50 as a “power grab” by Newsom and other Democrats in the state government, arguing that the new maps were drawn behind closed doors without adequate public input. They say that bringing back congressional maps designed by political officials undermines California voters who supported the creation of the independent redistricting commission in 2008.

Schwarzenegger has said that gerrymandering — redrawing district lines to favor a political party — is wrong, no matter which state does it.

“It is not at all serving the people. It is serving the party,” he said in an interview with the Houston Chronicle.

Munger argues that an escalation of redistricting efforts across multiple states would undermine democracy overall.

“If our nation devolves into competing efforts to gerrymander, we will lose the ability to fight back against overreach by either party,” he wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times.

Read more arguments from opponents below:

• No on 50 official campaign website
• Do Not Re-Gerrymander California (Charles T. Munger. Jr. for the New York Times)

What others say

Notably, some groups that promote political reform have declined to take a position on Proposition 50. They include Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.

In a statement, Common Cause President and Chief Executive Virginia Kase Solomón said the group opposes gerrymandering no matter who does it, but that it remains focused on the larger threat of authoritarianism at the national level. Common Cause released a list of “fairness criteria” to evaluate the new congressional maps, determining that California’s maps met that criteria while those in Texas did not.

The League of Women Voters issued a statement, saying “the people most affected by district maps, especially communities of color who are often underrepresented, should be the ones to decide if those maps are fair.”

Potential financial impact

The state Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Proposition 50 would result in “minor one-time costs” to county and state election officials due to having to update election materials for a different group of voters.

That amount, according to their analysis, would come out to “a few million dollars” to county governments statewide and roughly $200,000 to the state government. It notes that the state costs are less than one-tenth of 1% of the state’s $220 billion general fund budget.

Follow the money

Auditors are flagging major problems with the handling of tax dollars by the L.A. Homeless Services Authority.

The failures surround poor bookkeeping and accounting of taxpayer money at the agency — which spent over $800 million in public funds last fiscal year. The issues emerged despite previous audits flagging serious oversight problems in prior years. The latest audit was conducted by an outside firm hired by the agency to meet federal requirements.

The agency’s financial statements initially included “significant” inaccurate amounts that needed to be adjusted late in the audit process, auditors found in their review of LAHSA’s last fiscal year that ended in June 2025.

The findings are from the federally-required “single audit,” a draft of which was presented to LAHSA’s audit committee on Monday. It found the inaccuracies stemmed from a "significant deficiency” in LAHSA’s “internal controls,” which are supposed to safeguard against financial inaccuracies and fraud.

The accounting failures contributed to delays in completing the audit — which was due to the federal government on March 31 — according to the draft report. Missing that deadline can put future federal funding at risk. LAHSA officials said at the committee meeting that they hope to submit the final audit report this coming Friday, more than three weeks after the deadline.

At a public meeting Monday, LAHSA CEO Gita O’Neill told LAHSA’s audit committee that her team was working to implement many of the auditors’ recommendations, which she called “great suggestions.”

The draft audit report now goes to the LAHSA Commission for approval on Friday. The audit committee was asked to approve it Monday but didn’t have majority support to move forward.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who oversees the agency and is the only elected official on LAHSA’s governing commission, did not respond to a request for comment through a spokesperson.

The backstory

In response to previous audits that found major problems with LAHSA’s oversight of tax dollars, county supervisors decided last spring to withdraw all of the county’s $300 million-plus in annual funding of services through LAHSA and instead have the county directly manage it starting on July 1.

Problems identified in the latest audit reiterate why the county pulled its funding, Supervisor Kathryn Barger said in a statement Monday.

“LAHSA’s inaction and inability to meet its audit deadline is inexcusable,” Barger said.

In a statement, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said the “significant financial problems” found in the audit give “further confirmation” why the county decided to shift its funds out of LAHSA.

“Accountability isn’t optional; it is required to end this emergency. Anything less is unacceptable,” Horvath said.

The city is considering moving in a similar direction as the county. A key City Council panel — its homelessness committee — recently recommended the full council start shifting city homelessness funding out of LAHSA over the course of the next fiscal year. Bass has urged caution, saying moving too quickly to shift funding could disrupt services for unhoused people.

LAHSA has long functioned as the L.A.’s homeless services department, with over $300 million in city money expected to flow through LAHSA this fiscal year.

As of last summer, LAHSA had $380.5 million in assets and $381 million in liabilities, and received a total of $810 million in operating revenues during the last fiscal year, according to the latest audit.

Other problems identified by auditors

During Monday’s discussion, lead auditor Justin Measley said LAHSA did not disclose millions of dollars in payments to a service provider whose executive was married to LAHSA’s CEO at the time, Va Lecia Adams Kellum. The audit is required to list “related party” transactions, Measley said, which involve an organization with immediate family ties to LAHSA’s leadership. He said auditors only learned about it later through reviewing news media coverage.

“The article is what triggered us knowing about this specifically,” said Measley, who works for the auditing firm CliftonLarsonAllen.

LAist uncovered documents showing Adams Kellum’s signature was on a $2.1 million contract and two other contract amendments with Upward Bound House, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit where her husband Edward Kellum works in senior leadership. The contract named Adams Kellum as the LAHSA official authorized to administer it.

Va Lecia Adams Kellum, former CEO of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, at a news briefing at L.A. City Hall in June 2023.

(

Gary Coronado

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

A LAHSA-commissioned investigation cleared Adams Kellum of wrongdoing in part because “her signature was unintentionally applied by her staff, not by herself,” according to a summary released by LAHSA. LAHSA spokesperson Paul Rubenstein previously told LAist that Adams Kellum herself “mistakenly signed” the agreements. LAHSA officials also previously distributed an email from Adams Kellum’s official account to a colleague about one of the contracts with her husband’s employer, which stated “Please delete the document that I signed accidentally.”

Last year, state investigators at the Fair Political Practices Commission launched a conflict of interest investigation into the matter, which is ongoing.

Monday’s audit committee meeting also included discussion of the auditors’ findings that LAHSA is locked into paying $75 million for long-term leases over the coming years that cannot be canceled. Those leases are largely through its master leasing program that started over the last couple of years, which leases 14 apartment buildings, totaling 772 units, to provide housing for unhoused people. LAHSA management says the master leasing program is currently significantly underwater financially.

A presentation last week by LAHSA management said the master leases are causing an annual budget hit of $10 million to LAHSA, which is prompting the agency to pull from other grants to pay for the leases.

LAHSA’s lease accounting was at the center of a "significant” correction to the agency’s financial statements late in the audit process, the audit states in its findings.

The auditors also found that LAHSA failed to comply with requirements for payroll costs that it charged to the federal government. The agency’s management failed to ensure timesheets for its employees were approved for three of the 40 timesheets the auditors reviewed, despite the law requiring federally-funded salaries to be based on accurate records of work, auditors found.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Monday unveiled a $14.9 billion budget that is significantly rosier than last year’s spending plan, when she suggested massive layoffs and service cuts to accommodate a billion-dollar deficit.

This year, because of a projected increase in revenues, the mayor is proposing no layoffs and a modest expansion of street services. Bass' budget also calls for hiring police officers to keep up with retirements and resignations, maintaining Fire Department spending and holding steady funding for homelessness programs.

“This budget is about protecting the progress we have made and making clear that Los Angeles is moving forward and will not go backward,” Bass said at a news conference.

In the proposal, the reserve fund is 5.7% of the general fund, or $490 million. The budget does not dip into the reserves, in contrast to last year’s plan.

Bass is seeking re-election this year. The primary is June 2.

Some of her challengers in the upcoming election, including Councilmember Nithya Raman, criticized Bass’ proposal as doing little more than maintaining the status quo.

“The budget the Mayor released today tells us the plan is to largely keep doing what we're doing — but what we're doing is not working,” Raman said in a statement.

Next, the proposal will go to the City Council for consideration. Budget hearings will be conducted in the coming weeks.

Increasing revenue

Among the reasons city officials say revenue will go up is the expected influx of thousands of visitors to World Cup soccer matches this summer. More travelers mean more people staying in hotels and paying hotel taxes, as well as more sales tax revenue.

The budget projects a $412 million increase in general tax revenue, including $71 in business taxes, $34 million in sales taxes and $67 million in utility taxes.

The budget would add 170 new positions in the department that handles street repairs and increase funding for street and sidewalk fixes, curb-ramp installation, street sweeping, bulky item pickup and dedicated illegal dumping enforcement throughout the city.

The budget also proposes hiring 510 police officers, representing a target of 8,555 for the Police Department and enough to keep up with attrition, according to budget officials. Bass has set a goal of 9,500 officers.

“It’s about preventing the shrinkage of LAPD,” Bass said.

That proposal is likely to see opposition from some council members who want to see the department shrink and funding for unarmed response teams increase.

Inside Safe

The budget sustains citywide coverage for civilian unarmed crisis response, maintaining deployment of 500 crossing guards and expanding a program that aims to help children get to and from school safely and protect them from gang violence.

Under the budget, funding for Inside Safe, the mayor’s signature program to address homelessness, would remain about the same — $104 million.

The mayor touts an 18% drop in street homelessness as evidence of its success.

The budget maintains funding for the city Fire Department. In November, voters are expected to decide whether to increase the sales tax by half a percent to pay for more firefighters and equipment.

Criticism for the budget

Bass’ challengers immediately criticized her budget as lacking vision.

“This budget maintains a status quo of reduced services and higher fees, the direct result of fiscally irresponsible decisions made by this Mayor in prior years,” Raman said in her statement.

In January, the council member voted against Bass’ plan to hire 170 more police officers.

Adam Miller, a tech entrepreneur and another Bass challenger, said keeping the budget flat “implies that the status quo is working.”

“That is tone-deaf to the city of Los Angeles as Angelenos overwhelmingly feel we need change," he said.

The budget needs to be approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor by July 1, the start of the fiscal year.

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer is leaving her post amid an internal investigation brought on by complaints about misconduct.

White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung announced the departure on X, writing "she has done a phenomenal job in her role by protecting American workers, enacting fair labor practices, and helping Americans gain additional skills to improve their lives." Cheung said Chavez-DeRemer was taking a position in the private sector.

A senior official at the Labor Department not authorized to speak publicly about the departure said the secretary had resigned.

Chavez-DeRemer is the third cabinet member to leave during President Donald Trump's second term.

In early March, Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shortly after lawmakers on Capitol Hill berated her over her agency's handling of immigration enforcement — as well as its $220 million ad campaign featuring the secretary on horseback.

A month later, Attorney General Pam Bondi left amid simmering frustration over her leadership of the Justice Department and her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

While Chavez-DeRemer has played a far less visible role than Bondi or Noem in Trump's second term, her tenure has also been marked by controversy.

In January, the New York Post first reported that the Labor Department's inspector general was looking into complaints that Chavez-DeRemer was having an affair with a subordinate, drinking alcohol on the job and using taxpayer-funded travel to visit with friends and family members.

NPR has not independently verified the contents of the investigation.

While in office, Chavez-DeRemer spent much of her time away from Washington. A year ago, she launched her "America at Work" listening tour, an initiative that took her to all 50 states.

Chavez-DeRemer's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, who had been on leave since January, resigned in early March. A third senior member of her staff, Melissa Robey, said in a statement issued March 26 that she had been fired a couple days earlier, after giving a four-hour interview to the Office of the Inspector General.

Meanwhile, the New York Times was first to report that Chavez-DeRemer's husband, Shawn DeRemer, an anesthesiologist in Portland, Ore., had been barred from Labor Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., after at least two staffers reported he had touched them inappropriately. Washington, D.C. police and federal prosecutors closed the investigations without bringing charges.

An unconventional choice

Trump's selection of Chavez-DeRemer to lead the Labor Department was seen by many as a concession to Teamsters President Sean O'Brien. O'Brien had been friendly with Trump through the presidential campaign, taking a prime-time speaking slot at the 2024 Republican National Convention and later declining to endorse Trump's opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

O'Brien had pushed for Chavez-DeRemer's selection, noting that she was one of only a few Republicans in Congress to have supported the PRO Act. That bill aimed to make it easier for workers to organize unions, including by overturning state Right to Work laws, which weaken unions.

At the time, Trump wrote, "Lori's strong support from both the Business and Labor communities will ensure that the Labor Department can unite Americans of all backgrounds."

Deputy Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, who has already been running much of the day-to-day operations of the Labor Department, has been named acting secretary, according to Cheung's post on X.

Sonderling previously served at the Labor Department during the first Trump administration and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Biden administration, having been nominated by Trump during his first term to fill a Republican seat.
Copyright 2026 NPR