Sacramento District Redrawing Faces Opposition

The effort to redraw California’s Capitol district encountered immediate resistance on Tuesday, highlighting the challenges Governor Gavin Newsom and his supporters may face in convincing voters to back their initiatives.

Following Texas Republicans’ move to reshape their political districts to benefit five GOP members post-2026 elections, California Democrats joined the fray.

The proposed new district map could potentially cost several Republican seats in California. In Sacramento, Republican lawmakers slammed Democrats for attempting to dismantle the independent redistricting process that voters endorsed in 2010. They raised concerns about the insufficient time for legislators and the public to review the proposed council district maps, questioning the origins and funding of these initiatives.

In response, California Republicans filed an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court, alleging that Democrats rushed the bill through the legislative process, violating state constitutional requirements. According to the state constitution, members who introduce non-budget bills should do so at least 30 days before a Congressional vote, unless a three-quarters majority agrees to bypass this rule. The bill, introduced on Monday, involved a method known as “gut and amend,” where lawmakers replaced text from old bills with new proposals.

The lawsuit argued that without Supreme Court intervention, the state could implement “significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,” as stated by GOP state Senators Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares, along with Assemblymembers Tri Ta and Kathryn Sanchez.

Democrats faced inquiries about their actions, including questions about who was behind the proposed Congressional district changes.

Gail Peralin, the chair of the Congressional Elections Committee, remarked, “When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to see the chef.”

On Thursday, Democrats announced their campaign to halt efforts by the independent district committee. New district maps were shared with state legislative leaders on Friday, and three bills were introduced in Congress on Monday.

If the measure receives two-thirds approval from both Congressional bodies and is signed by Newsom this week, it could go to a vote on November 4th.

Lawmakers logged hours of testimonies and debates on Tuesday, with frequent interruptions and exchanges during the Assembly Election Commission hearing. Towards the meeting’s conclusion, Peralin expressed a desire for “a little more time and respect,” after five hours of discussion.

Mark Berman and David Tangipa, committee members, continually probed witnesses about the rapid pace of legislation and the implications of special elections, alongside limited public input opportunities. Tangipa voiced his concern over the inadequate time lawmakers had to consider this legislation.

“It’s frustrating and disappointing for Californians,” Tangipa remarked. “What makes you think you truly care about us?”

Berman dismissed the concerns, stating the bill comprised only five pages.

During a Senate Election Committee meeting, Sen. Steve Choi, the sole Republican on the panel, pressed Democrats about the process behind the map’s creation before its presentation.

Tom Willis, a campaign advisor to Newsom supporting the district change, asserted that the map was “publicly submitted” and examined for legal compliance. However, when asked who originally drafted the map, Willis admitted he lacked that information as he was not involved in the process.

When questioned about California’s move to alter an independent district approach in light of Texas’s potential changes, state Senate majority leader Lena Gonzalez stated matter-of-factly, “This is a partisan gerrymander,” intended to counteract the Trump administration’s policies, which have disproportionately affected Californians. “That’s what we’re really discussing.”

Her comments prompted GOP supporters to voice their objections vigorously.

Meanwhile, advocates for independent districts had initially shown willingness to reconsider the state’s redistricting rules but ultimately voiced their opposition to the state Senate bill, citing major concerns over voter protections. They argued that the proposed law could reduce in-person voting and limit opportunities for underrepresented communities, which could in turn diminish public engagement in the electoral process.