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

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents could remain at U.S. airports even after Transportation Security Administration workers receive their paychecks, according to White House border czar Tom Homan.

Asked if ICE agents will leave airports once TSA workers begin receiving pay again, Homan said on Sunday "we'll see."

"It depends on how many TSA agents come back to work [and] how many TSA agents have actually quit and have no plan [of] coming back to work," Homan told CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper.

Homan also said he spoke with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, adding that there is a plan to get TSA workers paid "hopefully by tomorrow or Tuesday."

"It's good news… because these TSA officers are struggling. They can't feed their families or pay their rent," Homan told Tapper.

NPR reached out to DHS for additional comment on the timing of when workers would get paid but the department has not responded. A DHS social media post on Friday indicated TSA had begun the process of paying its workforce and that paychecks could arrive as early as Monday. That announcement came after President Donald Trump signed a memo ordering that workers get paid from existing funds, even though Congress has not allocated the money amid an impasse over passing legislation to fund DHS. It remains unclear where the money would come from to fund the paychecks as NPR previously reported.

It's been a week since the president ordered ICE to send agents to airports around the country to help TSA with security as the DHS shutdown entered a sixth week.

ICE officers have been assisting TSA agents by "checking identification" and "plugging other security holes," allowing remaining TSA workers to focus on tasks that require more training, such as monitoring machines that examine luggage, according to Homan.

About 50,000 transportation security workers have been forced to continue working without pay, missing multiple paychecks since disagreements in Congress led to a DHS shutdown. More than 480 TSA workers have quit, according to TSA Acting Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill. She told lawmakers at a hearing last Wednesday that worker absences were as high as 40% at some airports. That has led to long wait times for passengers at security checkpoints.

Homan says those lines have already become shorter.

"I was in Houston — wait lines decreased in about half. We got additional agents going to Baltimore yesterday, to bring those lines down," Homan told CNN.

A notice on Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport's web page Sunday afternoon said wait times had improved since Saturday but remained longer than normal. At George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, security wait times were under two hours Sunday. But the airport warned travelers that "TSA lines could exceed four hours."

As for when permanent funding for DHS can be reached, that remains unclear. Negotiations in Congress remain stalled as lawmakers left Washington for a planned recess. The Senate returns April 13. The House is back on April 14.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on whether all children born in the United States can continue to automatically receive citizenship.

The decision, not expected for months, could reshape what had been a longtime, constitutionally enshrined practice that has been challenged by the Trump administration.

Public opinion on the issue is complicated. Americans are heavily in favor of granting citizenship to children born to parents who were also born in the U.S. — or to those who immigrated to the U.S. legally. But they are split on — or much less in support of — automatic citizenship for children born to parents who immigrated illegally.

Is birthright citizenship a common policy?

Only about three dozen countries around the world, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, offer automatic birthright citizenship.

The legal term for the practice is jus solí, Latin for "right of soil." It has roots in colonialism, particularly in South America and Africa, when Western European countries needed more people for labor and to outnumber native populations in those places. Many African countries abandoned the practice after gaining independence.

Other countries in recent decades have also abolished the practice. Ireland did so in 2005 after roughly 80% of voters rejected it. The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, India and Pakistan all also have done away with it.

Many countries offer citizenship instead via jus sanguinis, or "right of blood." In other words, through familial lineage. This month, though, Italy even further restricted who qualifies.

Can't see the video above? Watch it here.

What does the Constitution say?

In the United States, birthright citizenship became part of the Constitution in 1868 as an effort to protect recently freed slaves.

It was enacted with the passage of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the amendment says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But President Trump has taken aim at birthright citizenship, passing an executive order on Day 1 of his second term to ban it.

Aimed at immigrants who cross the border illegally, the Trump administration argues that the Constitution's clause is outdated and has been abused.

Where does the public stand?

Public opinion is nuanced on birthright citizenship and can depend on how pollsters ask the question.

When surveys ask about birthright citizenship in general, people largely say they are supportive. But that support begins to crumble when respondents are asked about the parents' legal status — with significant divisions by party, race, age and how they get their information.

A Public Religion Research Institute survey from December found two-thirds are in favor of granting citizenship "regardless of their parents' citizenship status." A large-sample poll by Civic Health and Institutions Project, or CHIP50, a survey done in conjunction with multiple universities, found 59% in favor of keeping it.

But both showed higher support than other surveys, and both mentioned in their questions that the right is found in the U.S. Constitution.

Other surveys have found less support. For example:

• An NPR/Ipsos poll last year found a slim majority (53%) against ending the practice with 28% in favor. (It asked if people supported or opposed ending the practice.)
• The Pew Research Center showed that more than 9 in 10 support birthright citizenship for those born to parents who immigrated to the U.S. legally, but — by a 50%-49% margin — were divided on giving it to those born to parents who are in the country illegally. (Pew asked if certain groups should or should not be considered U.S. citizens.)
• A YouGov poll had 51% in favor with 39% opposed. But that dropped considerably for those not in the country legally. Just 31% said they were in favor of granting citizenship to babies of people who are "undocumented," as the survey put it, and only 25% for tourists visiting the U.S. (YouGov also did not mention that birthright citizenship is in the Constitution in its questions.) 

Divides by party, race and more

Many polls fairly consistently show majorities of Democrats, Latinos, Black Americans and those who are younger are in favor of birthright citizenship, while majorities of Republicans, especially white Republicans, are against.

For example, Pew found three-quarters of Democrats in support of granting citizenship to children of those who immigrated illegally, but only a quarter of Republicans supported it.

There is a split among Republicans, though. Only 18% of white Republicans are in favor, but 55% of Republican Hispanics are in favor.

By race regardless of political party, Pew found three-quarters of Latinos and 61% of Black Americans were in favor of birthright citizenship for those whose parents immigrated illegally, but only 48% of Asian Americans and 42% of whites were.

CHIP50, similarly, found 8 in 10 Democrats support birthright citizenship "regardless of their parents' immigration status," but only 39% of Republicans in favor. (It also found a much higher percentage of Asian Americans — 63% — in favor. YouGov found only 53% of Democrats in favor when the parents are "undocumented immigrants," and an even lower 13% of Republicans supported that.)

Those under 50 were in favor of birthright citizenship if the parents "immigrated illegally" by a 58%-41% margin, according to Pew. But almost 6 in 10 of those 50 or older were against it.

There was also a divide depending on how long the respondent has been in the United States. Two-thirds of second-generation Americans in Pew's polling were in favor. But 55% of those who are third generation or higher were against it.

PRRI found a big divide by how information is consumed, too. In that survey, 80% or more of those who most trust newspapers or mainstream TV news were in support of birthright citizenship, "regardless of their parents' citizenship status."

But only 41% of those who trust Fox News support birthright citizenship, and an even lower number (29%) of those who prefer outlets that are considered even further to the right did, too.
Copyright 2026 NPR

I went to a fantastic art talk with Cole Case and Shana Nys Dambrot last week, where Case talked about his paintings of the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles, which have deep art history references — and even some fun local news ones. Check out the powerful exhibit at Track 16 through April 18.

On Monday, Licorice Pizza’s Lyndsey Parker recommends going back to school with indie star Mitski, who’s playing the Hollywood High auditorium. She’ll also be there Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Tuesday, K-pop star Jackson Wang plays the Forum, indie torch singer Goldie Boutilier is at the Belasco, rising pop singer Sarah Kinsley is at the Fonda, and veteran Welsh noise-rockers McLusky play the Regent. On Wednesday, singer-songwriter Ricky Montgomery plays the Wiltern, and on Thursday, Philly emo band Sweet Pill is at the El Rey.

Elsewhere on LAist, you can lament the end of sawdust on the floor of Philippe, check out a queer Latin dance studio in O.C. and grab tickets to join LAist at Night of Ideas at the Wende Museum on April 4.

Events

Six Chick Flicks

Tuesday, March 31, 7 p.m.
UCB Franklin 
5919 Franklin Ave., Hollywood
COST: FROM $20; MORE INFO

(

Lauren Silberman

)

The alternative title for this comedy hit that sold out at the Edinburgh Fringe is Legally Blonde Pretty Woman Dirty Danced on the Beaches While Writing a Notebook on the Titanic, so I think you can see where this is going. Rom-com fans will get every nuanced joke in this feminist parody take on your favorite escapist movies with Kerry Ipema (One Woman Sex and the City) and KK Apple (UCB Theatre).

History in Bloom

Through April 8, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 
TreePeople 
1201 Mulholland Drive, Coldwater Canyon 
COST: FREE; MORE INFO

TreePeople is such a special group, and they're showcasing their history from their 1973 founding to today through a new exhibit on-site with creative installations and archival storytelling. The new exhibit highlights community-driven outdoor education and forestry initiatives, along with their work on climate resilience. Stop by to see the exhibit before or after a hike in the next couple of weeks (but beware of rattlesnake season!).

Watches and Whiskey 

Tuesday, March 31, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
The Penmar 
1233 Rose Ave., Venice 
COST: FREE; MORE INFO

Some people are obsessed with watches — fancy watches, historic watches, hard-to-find watches — and in this era of using your phone as a watch, it’s refreshing to see an analog timepiece out there. Get to know the world of watches better at the Penmar, where SecondTime Watches has planned an evening built around talking watches and drinking whiskey.

Noni Olabisi: When Lightning Strikes 

Through April 4
LMU Laband Art Gallery
Burns Fine Arts Center
1 LMU Drive, Westchester
COST: FREE; MORE INFO

(

Noni Olabisi

/

LMU Laband Art Gallery

)

Make sure to catch this first (but certainly not last) institutional show highlighting the work of L.A. muralist Noni Olabisi before it’s gone. Olabisi portrayed Black Americans with a truthful eye and examined the history of racism, particularly in her large-scale murals, including “Freedom Won’t Wait” (1992), painted following the L.A. uprising after the Rodney King trial, and “To Protect and Serve” (1995), which portrayed a history of the Black Panther Party and police brutality. The show features 40 pieces made from 1984 to 2022; Olabisi died unexpectedly in 2022, and her works were added to the Cultural Treasures of South Los Angeles database in 2023.

Ever Present: Mary Halvorson — CANIS MAJOR 

Tuesday, March 31, 7 p.m.
Getty Center
1200 Getty Center Drive, Brentwood
COST: FREE; MORE INFO 

(

Ernest Stuart

/

Getty Center

)

MacArthur “Genius” Mary Halvorson brings her new jazz quartet project, CANIS MAJOR, to the Getty for a free concert that explores sound in a unique way. She's known for “crystalline single-note lines that seem to ‘bend’ time, kaleidoscopic harmonic turns, and an innovative use of effects — especially subtle pitch-shifting and delay — that expands the guitar into something orchestral and uncanny.”

Macaroons and Matzo Ball Soup

Through April 9 
All Superba locations
COST: VARIES; MORE INFO 

Matzo ball soup comes in many versions.

(

Deb Lindsey

/

The Washington Post/Getty Images

)

Whether you’re having a seder or not, pick up the two best Passover foods — matzo ball soup and chocolate-dipped macaroons — at all Superba locations. They are available for pre-order and pickup through April 9 at all locations.

Ravi Shankar Ensemble

Tuesday, March 31, 8 p.m.
Alex Theatre
216 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale 
COST: FROM $42; MORE INFO

(

Courtesy It's My Seat

)

The Ravi Shankar Ensemble’s tour launches at the Alex Theatre with the ethereal sounds of world-class musicians celebrating the legendary sitarist's legacy. The evening will blend traditional sitar and tabla rhythms with contemporary arrangements; it’s a great introduction to the sounds that inspired everyone from the Beatles to John Coltrane and many more.

The Joy Who Lived trans theater and comedy festival 

March 31 to April 12
Various locations 
COST: $1-$25, SLIDING SCALE; MORE INFO

Tuesday is International Trans Day of Visibility, and what better way to mark the occasion (particularly in these difficult times) than with some joy, namely L.A.’s trans theater and comedy festival, The Joy Who Lived? Back for its second year with more than 30 shows, readings and workshops by trans and nonbinary artists, the festival opens with comedy-variety show Gentleman’s Club at Dynasty Typewriter.

In Southern California — home to the largest Persian community outside of Iran — the annual festivities for Nowruz, the Persian New Year, have been muted by the ongoing war in Iran.

Nowruz coincides with the Spring Equinox and celebrates life, the beginning of spring, and the triumph of light over darkness. The celebrations typically last 13 days.

Dancing in the lobby of Segerstrom Hall in Costa Mesa during the 2025 Nowruz celebration.

(

Courtesy of Pacific Symphony

/

LAist

)

How has Nowruz changed this year?

The L.A.-based Farhang Foundation, which promotes Iranian arts and culture, canceled its 16th annual Nowruz event at UCLA this year. “It just was not something that was appropriate when so many Iranians are mourning the terrible loss of life in Iran,” said Alireza Ardekani, the foundation’s CEO.

Iranian-American conductor and composer Shardad Rohani.

(

Courtesy of Pacific Symphony

/

LAist

)

Nowruz with the Pacific Symphony

Some Nowruz celebrations are still taking place, including an April 4 performance by the Pacific Symphony and guest Iranian musicians and artists. Shardad Rohani, former music director of the Tehran Symphony Orchestra, said it’s important to emphasize the holiday’s message of hope.

“Without hope, there is really no future,” he said. “So we are really not a hundred percent in the mood of celebration, but we are hopeful.”