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

President Donald Trump says he wants the gas tax to be temporarily suspended as the war in Iran extends into its 11th week and keeps oil prices elevated.

He told CBS News Monday morning he wants the tax suspended "for a period of time" and would want it reintroduced "when gas goes down."

Asked by reporters in the Oval Office later in the day how long the gas tax would be suspended, the president responded, "'Til it's appropriate."

Suspending the gas tax would require an act of Congress. Currently, the tax is 18.4 cents per gallon of gas and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel.

Regular gasoline cost just under $3 per gallon on average before the U.S. bombed Iran. Now, the average cost per gallon has soared by more than 50 percent to $4.52, according to AAA.

A cost reduction of 18.4 cents would lower that average gasoline cost by around 4 percent. It would bring the cost of a 12-gallon fill-up down by $2.21.

Blockades imposed during the Iran war have stalled the passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, causing gas prices to spike. Around one-fifth of the world's crude oil usually travels through that strait.

The potential suspension of the gas tax is a tacit acknowledgment from the White House of the toll that high gas prices have taken on American consumers. Eight in ten Americans say gas prices are straining their budgets, including overwhelming majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike, according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll.

In addition, 63 percent of Americans say they blame Trump "a great deal" or "a good amount" for those higher gas prices. That includes more than 6 in 10 independents and nearly one-third of Republicans.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Seventeen U.S. cruise passengers returned to the U.S. early Monday, after weeks aboard the MV Hondius, the cruise ship at the center of a deadly hantavirus outbreak, the Associated Press reported. The Americans disembarked the cruise in the Canary Islands on Sunday and boarded a medical repatriation flight, arranged by the U.S. government, bound for Nebraska.

The Dutch-flagged cruise ship departed from southern Argentina on April 1, and followed an itinerary across the South Atlantic with multiple stops in remote islands. Three of the passengers have died since the outbreak began.

During the U.S. return flight, one of the Americans tested "mildly" positive for the virus and another showed mild symptoms, according to an X post by the official @HHSGov account. The two potentially affected passengers traveled in biocontainment units aboard the plane, according to the X post.

Also on Monday, a French woman tested positive for hantavirus, French Health Minister Stephanie Rist said. The woman was among five French passengers repatriated Sunday to Paris.

What's ahead for the 17 American passengers

After landing at the Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, most passengers will head to the National Quarantine Unit at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) for an initial evaluation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The passenger with symptoms will proceed to another specialized treatment center, according to the X post, though it did not specify where that would be.

"For the passengers getting off the ship, I'd say, 'Welcome to Nebraska.' You are coming to the premier facility in the United States, if not the world, to take care of you," says Dr. Ali Khan, dean of the College of Public Health at UNMC.

The 17 U.S. passengers are among the total of nearly 150 people who were on the ship from 23 different countries. They've endured in the midst of a hantavirus outbreak which has caused at least eight cases, including three deaths, according to the World Health Organization.

The returning Americans had been isolating in their cruise cabins. They will now be monitored for several more weeks, U.S. health officials said in a media call on Saturday.

Most of the passengers are arriving at America's only federally funded quarantine unit, which also received cruise passengers from a different outbreak — the Diamond Princess Cruise, in early 2020 — which was one of the first known superspreading events of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unlike COVID, which was a novel pathogenic strain when it emerged, scientists have been studying hantaviruses — and specifically the Andes variant which caused this outbreak — for decades. "We do know that you can get small clusters of disease, but in 30 years we've never seen any large outbreaks," says Khan, "so this is unlikely to become a pandemic."

This strain of hantavirus can be deadly, but it isn't very contagious between people. It tends to take prolonged, close contact with someone who's showing symptoms.

So far, most of the U.S. passengers are well. But symptoms can take up to 42 days after exposure to show up, according to the CDC.

"It's appropriate to be cautious," Khan says, "To monitor these people for 42 days [to make sure] they don't get sick. And if they do get sick during those 42 days, to make sure to put them into isolation."

Health officials said the U.S. passengers would all be assessed clinically upon arrival, though they would not be officially quarantined. They suggested that some passengers could continue monitoring at home, with daily check-ins from their health departments.

Seven U.S. passengers who had left the cruise ship earlier are being monitored in several states, including Texas, California, Georgia and Virginia.

Public health experts have been raising alarms over what they consider to be a muted public response by the U.S. government to this outbreak.

Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health law at Georgetown University, says the U.S. response has been fragmented, disjointed, and delayed for weeks, but it's finally coming together. "The CDC was missing in action for quite a long time," he says. "Better late than never — but it is very late."

In response to a request for comment from NPR, Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services: "These claims are completely inaccurate. The U.S. government is conducting a coordinated, interagency response led by the Department of State. HHS, through ASPR [Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response] and CDC, is supporting efforts to protect the health and safety of U.S. citizens, including repatriation, medical evaluation, and public health guidance."

She further described CDC's response activities, including setting up its Emergency Operations Center, deploying teams to the Canary Islands and Nebraska, and notifying state health departments of returning U.S. travelers.

Many of these activities have come recently, and Gostin agrees that the U.S. government is now taking active measures to ensure that the passengers, their families, and the communities they're returning to are safe.

But health officials got lucky this time: the Andes virus is not very contagious, and health officials say this outbreak will likely be contained. The way the U.S. has handled this episode shows glaring gaps in its pandemic preparedness, Gostin says: "If this was a highly transmissible virus, you could imagine what chaos we would be facing now."

Gostin says the U.S. should invest more in infectious disease prevention, containment and control.
Copyright 2026 NPR

General Motors agreed to pay $12.75 million in civil penalties for selling driving data of hundreds of thousands of California motorists to data brokers, allegedly without their consent.

The settlement, announced Friday, is the largest ever for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, a 2018 law that requires companies to tell consumers about how their data is shared and to respect requests to stop the sharing.

It stemmed from an investigation by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, several county district attorneys, and the California Privacy Protection Agency, which enforces the privacy act. They said General Motors misled drivers who paid for the emergency roadside and navigation service OnStar and made approximately $20 million from the unlawful sale of their data between 2020 and 2024. The information included names, location information, driving behavior, and contact information, Bonta said, which went to the data brokers LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Verisk Analytics.

“This trove of information included precise and personal location data that could identify the everyday habits and movements of Californians,” Bonta said in a press release.

The settlement also requires GM to stop selling data to any consumer reporting agencies for five years and submit privacy assessments to the state, among other provisions. It followed a similar agreement between the Federal Trade Commission and GM earlier this year and California settlements with Honda and Ford over the past 14 months for their own violations of the privacy act.

California’s investigation of GM began after a 2024 New York Times investigation found GM collected data about millions of drivers nationwide and sold it to insurance companies in order to charge the drivers higher premiums. Californians were not impacted by those premium hikes because a state law prohibits insurers from using driving data to set insurance rates, Bonta said.

Bonta told CalMatters at a press conference Friday that it’s unclear if location data collected by General Motors was used by other companies to make predictions about the prices people are willing to pay for goods. That practice is better known as surveillance pricing and can leverage location data. Target paid $5 million to settle a suit from San Diego County’s district attorney over its alleged use of location for the technique. Bonta’s office began an investigation into the surveillance pricing practices of businesses in January.

“I understand that there could be some overlap and maybe we'll discover something in our investigation in surveillance pricing, but that wasn't the focus of this case,” he said.

Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said the case started with one person finding location data in a report they requested about the data collected on them. That discovery, he added, led to investigations by journalists, prosecutors, and regulators.

“This case shows more than anything that one consumer can make a huge difference,” he said.

Though the settlement isn’t much compared to the $2.7 billion in net income that General Motors made last year, Hochman called it an indication that companies should expect higher penalties in the future. California reached a privacy law violation settlement with Disney in February for $2.75 million, previously the largest of its kind.

In a statement shared with CalMatters, General Motors spokesperson Charlotte McCoy said, “This agreement addresses Smart Driver, a product we discontinued in 2024, and reinforces steps we’ve taken to strengthen our privacy practices. Vehicle connectivity is central to a modern and safe driving experience, which is why we’re committed to being clear and transparent with our customers about our practices and the choices and control they have over their information.”

Californians will soon have a new protection against companies that use their data without their consent. Starting August 1, the more than 500 data brokers registered with the state must comply with requests California residents can make using an online tool known as the Delete Request and Opt-out Platform, or DROP. The privacy protection agency introduced the tool earlier this year.

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