Comments
THE WESTSIDE - California's partisan reaction to the mid-decade redistricting in Texas to maximize the Republican congressional caucus to five further marginalizes Democrats in a state where they have not won a statewide race since the days of former Governor Anne Richards, and now it seems Democrats are preparing to do exactly the same here in California.
Protect Fair Elections or www.protectfairelections.org seems intent on exposing the legislative hypocrisy by calling for a special statewide election that will cost Californians an estimated $200 million dollars.
"While California families struggle with soaring costs and the state sinks deeper into deficit, Governor Newsom and the legislature are scheming to take redistricting power away from our independent Citizens Redistricting Commission," according to Perfect Fair Elections in a flyer mailed to voters this week.
Describing the action as "unconstitutional gerrymandering," but what is unconstitutional about the age-old process of the majority drawing a favorable map that maximizes their representation in the House of Representatives? For how many seats can Democrats squeeze out of map that already has 43 of the 52 districts represented by a Democrat or 83% of California's entire congressional delegation!
California Democrats are now seeking to influence or revisit congressional redistricting largely in response to changing political dynamics and the high national stakes of the 2024 and 2026 elections, particularly the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Here is a breakdown of the motivations, the mechanics in California, and the historical context including "gerrymandering" and its namesake, Elbridge Gerry.
WHY CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS WANT TO REDRAW DISTRICTS:
Democrats see a strategic electoral advantage in restructuring the current map in mid-stream, ironically the primary argument being used against Texas Republicans.
California has 52 congressional seats, the most in the country. While California is a deep blue state overall, some "swing" districts in Central Valley, Orange County, and the Inland Empire have Republican representation. Democrats are targeting these areas to "flip" the House back from GOP control or at least protect Democratic incumbents come 2026.
In addition, California lost a congressional seat after the 2020 Census for the first time in history due to slower population growth in comparison to states like Texas where their representation continues to increase. This makes redistricting more politically advantageous, especially in marginal districts.
While Democrats boast the value of independent reapportionment commissions, the Texas power grab is being used as an excuse to do exactly the same.
California currently uses a Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC)—a nonpartisan body created to draw fair districts without legislative interference that was approved by voters in 2008. Some Democrats have grown frustrated with the CRC, arguing it diluted Democratic power in some areas by prioritizing geographic compactness or "communities of interest" over partisan outcomes.
In other states, both Democrats and Republicans have used the courts to challenge or redraw maps under claims of Voting Rights Act violations, racial fairness, or partisan gerrymandering. And there is increasing pressure on California Democrats to use similar legal avenues to more aggressively shape maps that favor their electoral chances.
For that is the responsibility of any political party, to protect and maximize the size of their legislative caucus. It is while unsavory, it is constitutional and part of a very partisan practice for centuries.
HISTORY OF GERRYMANDERING:
The term "gerrymandering" is a "portmanteau" of Elbridge Gerry and "salamander." In 1812, while Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry signed a redistricting bill favoring his Democratic-Republican Party. One of the new districts was so oddly shaped it resembled a salamander—thus a newspaper editor coined the term "Gerry-Mander."
Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814) is the founding father of this legislative practice. A founding father, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Gerry served as Vice President under President James Madison. Ironically, Gerry personally disliked extreme partisanship, yet his name became associated with one of its most notorious tools.
The US Supreme Court began reviewing cases, but for decades ruled gerrymandering was a “political question” beyond judicial reach. Landmark decisions such as Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) established “one person, one vote” principles, regulating population equality in districts. But partisan gerrymandering has intensified, with data-driven precision technology as both Democrats and Republicans have experts designing maps that best express the will of a majority in legislative bodies across the nation. While state legislatures are the most technically informed in drawing maps that will squeeze every partisan district that leaves house elections polarized and, in many cases, predetermined, as the number of competitive seats shrink with every new cycle.
For states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas are often cited in lawsuits for racial or partisan gerrymandering. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering is not justiciable in federal courts, though racial gerrymandering is still reviewable.
CALIFORNIA’S “ANTI-GERRYMANDERING” MODEL:
For now, California is often seen as a model for gerrymandering reform.
Prop 11 (2008) created an independent commission for state legislative districts, but that model is now at risk with this special election slated for November 4th. Prop 20 (2010) expanded this to congressional districts while intended to reduce gerrymandering, critics argue it can still favor one party indirectly through criteria like community representation or incumbent protection.
This special election ultimately offers everyday citizens the final verdict in one of the most polarizing and partisan legislative processes usually reserved to smoke filled rooms and legislative cloak rooms.
The choice for voters is simple, do two wrongs make a right?
And is all fair in partisan battles and legislative squabbling?
(Nick Antonicello is a thirty-two-year resident of the neighborhood of Venice and previously served as a legislative aide to two former members of the New Jersey General Assembly. Have a take or a tip, contact him via e-mail at [email protected])
