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.