California Gerrymandering Q&A: An Objective Analysis with Sources

monocountydemocrat
Sep 18
14 min read

Updated: Sep 19

Addressing Common Questions

Q: What exactly is gerrymandering?

A: Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to give one political party or group an unfair advantage over others. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, "voters are supposed to choose candidates.

But when lawmakers draw district lines to entrench one party's political power, some votes count more than others." This is typically done through two main techniques: "packing" opposing voters into a few districts where they win by large margins (wasting their votes), or "cracking" them across many districts where they become minorities (diluting their influence).

Source: Brennan Center for Justice - "Gerrymandering & Fair Representation"

Q: Are there different types of gerrymandering?

A: Yes, there are three main types:

Partisan gerrymandering: Drawing lines to benefit one political party over another
Racial gerrymandering: Drawing lines based on race, either to dilute minority voting power or to illegally concentrate voters by race
Bipartisan gerrymandering: Where both parties agree to draw "safe" districts that protect incumbents from both parties

Sources: Legal precedent from Shaw v. Reno (1993), various Supreme Court cases, and redistricting scholarship

Q: What legal protections exist against gerrymandering?

A: The legal landscape is complex and varies by type:

Racial gerrymandering: Prohibited by the 14th Amendment and subject to strict constitutional review by federal courts
Partisan gerrymandering: Since Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot address purely partisan gerrymanders, leaving it to state courts and legislatures
Voting Rights Act: Requires states to create majority-minority districts under certain conditions to ensure minority representation

Sources: Supreme Court cases Shaw v. Reno (1993), Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Voting Rights Act of 1965

Q: Have both parties engaged in gerrymandering historically?

A: Yes, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when they've controlled the redistricting process. According to the Brennan Center's analysis, "Both parties engaged in gerrymandering after the 2020 census, but, overall, the bias in this cycle's maps strongly favors Republicans due primarily to aggressive gerrymandering in GOP strongholds in the South and Midwest."

Source: Brennan Center for Justice - "How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House"

Q: What happened in the 1990s that changed the focus to racial gerrymandering?

A: The 1990s focused primarily on racial gerrymandering issues. Following the 1990 census, many states created majority-minority districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act. However, some of these districts were challenged in court for using race as the predominant factor, leading to the Shaw v. Reno decision that established constitutional limits on race-based district drawing.

Sources: Shaw v. Reno court records, academic redistricting literature, Voting Rights Act compliance documentation

Q: How did gerrymandering evolve in the 2000s?

A: The 2000s saw the rise of aggressive partisan gerrymandering, with Texas leading the way. The most notable case was Tom DeLay's orchestration of mid-decade redistricting in Texas in 2003, which broke the traditional once-per-decade norm and resulted in Republicans gaining six House seats. Technology advancement through computer mapping enabled more precise targeting of voters during this period.

Sources: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry court records, news coverage from 2003-2006, academic analysis of the Texas redistricting

Q: What made the 2010s the "peak gerrymandering era"?

A: Several factors converged: The Tea Party wave gave Republicans control over many more state legislatures during the crucial redistricting year, sophisticated data analytics and voter file analysis enabled unprecedented precision, and extreme outcomes demonstrated the new level of gerrymandering possible. For example, Pennsylvania's 2011 plan elected 13 Republicans and 5 Democrats in what was essentially a 50-50 state.

Sources: Election results analysis, court challenges to 2011 redistricting plans, Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings

Q: Which party controls more redistricting processes currently?

A: According to the Brennan Center's analysis, "Republicans disproportionately controlled the redistricting process, drawing 191 (or 44 percent) of the districts that will be used in this year's elections. By contrast, Democrats fully controlled the drawing of only 75 districts. The rest were drawn by commissions, courts, or divided governments."

Source: Brennan Center for Justice - "How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House"

Q: Is there data on which party benefits more from current gerrymandering?

A: Current data shows Republican advantages. The Brennan Center estimated that current gerrymandering gave “Republicans an advantage of around 16 House seats in the 2024 race to control Congress compared to fair maps." The analysis also notes that "Democrats also drew skewed maps in a few places, but the 7 extra Democratic or Democratic-leaning seats in those maps are less than a third of the 23 extra GOP or GOP-leaning seats in states with Republican-favoring maps."

Source: Brennan Center for Justice - "How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House"

Q: How do racial and partisan gerrymandering intersect?

A: They often overlap, particularly in the South. According to Princeton University's Gerrymandering Project analysis, "states with the most severe gerrymandering tend to be Republican-led states in the southern US, where the practice has historically been employed to dilute the influence of Black voters." Minority voters typically vote Democratic, so creating heavily minority districts can simultaneously fulfill Voting Rights Act requirements while removing Democratic voters from competitive districts, benefiting Republicans in surrounding areas.

Source: Al Jazeera reporting on Princeton University's Gerrymandering Project findings

Current Texas and California Context

Q: What's happening in Texas right now?

A: Texas Republicans conducted a rare mid-decade redistricting in 2025. According to NPR's analysis, "Republicans in the Texas House have released a proposed new redistricting map that seeks to fulfill President Trump's desire to add up to five additional GOP congressional seats in the state." The new map targets Democratic incumbents in districts around Austin, Dallas, Houston, and South Texas.

According to The Hill's reporting, "President Trump argued Republicans are 'entitled' to pick up five additional House seats in Texas because Democratic states are gerrymandered."

Legal Challenges: Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the new Texas map:

LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) lawsuit: Filed on behalf of 13 Texas residents, stating that "the redrawn districts in the new map are racially discriminatory and violate voter protection laws."
Federal challenges: The complaints allege that "the new map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment by diluting the voting power of Black and Latino communities."
Constitutional claims: Advocates argue the redistricting "violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it unnecessarily" targets minority voting power.
DOJ involvement: The Department of Justice previously challenged Texas redistricting plans, alleging that "Texas has violated Section 2 by creating redistricting plans that deny or abridge the rights of Latino and Black voters."

Sources:

NPR - Texas redistricting coverage
The Hill - "Donald Trump says GOP 'entitled' to 5 more House seats in Texas redistricting"
Texas Tribune - "Fresh off Texas Senate's approval, new congressional map is target of lawsuits"
Democracy Docket - "Advocates File Immediate Legal Challenge to Texas Gerrymander"
U.S. Department of Justice - lawsuit filings

Q: How is California responding and are they also gerrymandering?

A: California Democrats are responding with Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that will appear before voters on November 4, 2025. According to Ballotpedia, "Proposition 50 would provide that the Citizens Redistricting Commission will redraw congressional districts in 2031" and would temporarily allow the legislature to use new maps from 2026-2030.

Unlike Texas, California has used an independent redistricting commission since 2010. "The 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission (made up of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 members not affiliated with either major party (often referred to as "decline-to-state" or independent/third-party voters) adopted the existing congressional districts map on December 27, 2021, for use in elections from 2022 through 2030." The new maps would still need to adhere to constitutional redistricting parameters.

Key Differences between Texas and California:

Voter approval required: "Proposition 50 would, if approved by California voters in November, allow for the adoption of new congressional maps" - unlike Texas, where the legislature acted unilaterally
Conditional implementation: "The text of the amendment proposal cites President Trump's call for Republican-led states 'to undertake an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting of congressional seats to rig the 2026 United States'" - framing it explicitly as a response
Temporary nature: "The change is intended to be temporary; the measure that will go before voters requires the state to return to nonpartisan map-drawing after the 2030 census"

The proposed maps in California must still follow constitutional requirements for redistricting, including community of interest standards and equal population requirements. According to analysis, "this map would give Democrats a chance to win up to five additional seats. Three of their targeted seats would be fairly easy pickups, while two of them would be more like Toss-ups" - targeting Republican seats held by Doug LaMalfa, Kevin Kiley, Ken Calvert, David Valadao, and Darrell Issa.

California Republicans have filed multiple lawsuits to block the measure. However, "California's Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an emergency petition by state Republican lawmakers and the Dhillon Law Group to block a special election on redistricting in the fall", allowing the measure to proceed to voters.

Former President Obama broke with his usual opposition to gerrymandering to support California's approach. "Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it "a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time." According to Fox News, "I believe that Gov. Newsom's approach is a responsible approach" and according to The Washington Post, "The former president said that what Texas Republicans are doing requires an equally aggressive response from Democrats."

Prop 50 would also add language to California's Constitution declaring: "It is the policy of the State of California to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. The people of the State of California call on the Congress of the United States to pass federal legislation and propose an amendment of the United States Constitution to require the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide."

Sources:

Ballotpedia - "California Proposition 50, Use of Legislative Congressional Redistricting Map Amendment (2025)"
The Hill - "5 things to know about California's special election on redistricting"
CalMatters - "Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan is on its way to voters. What you need to know"
CBS Sacramento and other court coverage
The Hill, Fox News, Washington Post - Obama endorsement coverage

Q: Is this mid-decade redistricting normal?

A: No, redistricting typically happens once per decade after the census. Mid-decade redistricting is rare and controversial, with Texas's 2003 redistricting being the most notable previous example before the current situation.

Sources: Historical redistricting practices, academic literature, Supreme Court cases addressing mid-decade redistricting

Objective Assessment

Q: Based on the data, have both parties gerrymandered equally?

A: While both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when they've had the opportunity, current data suggests significant differences. The Brennan Center's research shows Republicans currently control significantly more redistricting processes and that Republican gerrymanders produce larger net partisan advantages. The analysis found that while Democratic gerrymanders create about 7 extra Democratic-leaning seats, Republican gerrymanders create about 23 extra GOP-leaning seats.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice - "How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House"

Q: What role do state courts play in gerrymandering oversight?

A: State courts have played different roles depending on the political composition of the state. According to the Brennan Center, "courts in states where Republicans drew maps (many of them with judges elected in partisan elections) have been much less inclined to police partisan gerrymandering than their counterparts in Democratic states. Thus, while large Democratic-favoring skews have been mostly corrected through legal review, Republican-favoring skews have almost uniformly remained uncorrected."

Source: Brennan Center for Justice - "How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House"

Q: What should voters know about the current situation?

A: Key facts for informed evaluation:

Both parties engage in gerrymandering when possible, but current control and net impact favor Republicans by a significant margin
Legal remedies are limited for partisan gerrymandering at the federal level since the 2019 Rucho decision
The current Texas-California dynamic represents an escalation from traditional once-per-decade redistricting
According to Princeton University's analysis, the most severe gerrymandering tends to occur in Republican-led Southern states

Sources: Multiple sources cited above, including Brennan Center research, Princeton Gerrymandering Project analysis, and Supreme Court decisions

Addressing Common Arguments Against Prop 50

Q: Is Texas only "rebalancing" its congressional seats rather than gerrymandering?

A: This is a matter of framing and perspective. Texas Republicans argue they are correcting past imbalances, while critics point to the aggressive targeting of specific Democratic incumbents and minority communities.

The key facts are: Texas is conducting rare mid-decade redistricting (only the second time since 2003), the new maps specifically target Democratic-held seats in Austin, Dallas, Houston, and South Texas, and multiple federal lawsuits allege the maps violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voting power. Whether this constitutes "rebalancing" or gerrymandering depends largely on one's political perspective.

Sources: Texas Tribune coverage, federal lawsuit filings, LULAC legal challenges

Q: Is it true that the League of Women Voters endorses a "No" vote on Prop 50?

A: No, this is false. The League of Women Voters of California has explicitly stated they "will not take a position on Proposition 50 and will remain neutral." According to KCRA's reporting, the League clarified that mailers from "Protect Voters First" incorrectly implied the organization endorsed their position, stating "This implication is not correct. We are not part of that coalition. The League of Women Voters of California did not authorize this action."

Sources:

League of Women Voters of California official statement
FOX40: "League of Women Voters of California announces neutrality on Proposition 50"
KCRA reporting on the misleading mailer controversy

Q: How much will Prop 50 cost taxpayers?

A: The estimated cost is approximately $230-235 million for the November 2025 special election.

Cost Breakdown:

Statewide estimate: Assembly Republicans calculated that the election would cost taxpayers more than $235 million
County examples: San Bernardino County estimated almost $25 million and Riverside County estimated up to $16 million for their portions
Comparison context: The last special election (2021 Newsom recall) had an initial estimate of $276 million but final costs were reported around $200 million, showing that final costs can differ from projections

Important Context: Unlike regular elections that are already budgeted and planned, special elections require counties to set up additional polling infrastructure, hire temporary staff, and conduct voter outreach on an accelerated timeline, which drives up per-vote costs significantly.

Sources:

The Hill: "5 things to know about California's special election on redistricting"
Redlands Daily Facts and iNewsSource (county-level cost estimates)
California Secretary of State and Department of Finance (2021 recall comparison)

Q: Have Democrats supported national independent redistricting while Republicans opposed it?

A: Yes, this is factually accurate. The voting records show a clear partisan divide on federal redistricting reform.

Specific Voting Records:

House Vote (March 3, 2021): The For the People Act (HR1), which included redistricting reform, passed 220-210 with "all but one present Democrat (Rep. Bennie Thompson, Miss.) voting in favor and all present Republicans voting against it"
Senate: The companion bill (S1) was blocked by Republican filibuster, with the procedural vote failing 50-50, short of the 60 votes needed

What the Bill Required for Redistricting: According to the Congressional Research Service summary, the bill would have required "all states utilize non-politician redistricting commissions, comprising even numbers of Democratic, Republican, and unaffiliated members" and would have "prohibited the enactment of maps that 'unduly favor or disfavor' one political party over another."

Republican Arguments Against the Broader Bill: Republicans opposed HR1/S1 for reasons beyond just redistricting. Key GOP arguments included:

Federal overreach: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it a "sweeping federal takeover" that would "rewrite election laws and impose one-size-fits-all partisan rules from Washington"
Campaign finance concerns: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy argued it would "send public dollars to fund political campaigns" and "politicize the FEC by turning it from an evenly divided commission into a partisan one"
Election security: Republicans argued it would "weaken the security of our elections by making it harder to protect against voter fraud" and "forbid states from implementing voter I.D. or doing simple things like checking their voter rolls"
Constitutional concerns: The Heritage Foundation argued many provisions "violate the First Amendment" and would impose "onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens"

Key Context: Republicans consistently argued they were opposing the broader package of election reforms, not specifically targeting independent redistricting. However, the bill was structured as an omnibus package, meaning a vote against it was effectively a vote against all its provisions, including redistricting reform.

The Brennan Center noted: "Congress nearly passed the Freedom to Vote Act, a landmark package of democracy reforms that included a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional districts. The transformative bill passed the House and had majority support in the Senate. It stalled only because the Senate failed by two votes to modify the chamber's archaic filibuster rules."

Sources:

Ballotpedia: "HR1, For the People Act of 2021"
Congressional voting records and Congressional Research Service summary
Republican leadership statements and Heritage Foundation analysis
Brennan Center analysis of the Freedom to Vote Act

Q: Was Texas forced to redistrict because of Biden administration lawsuits?

A: This is misleading. While the DOJ has challenged various Texas redistricting plans over the years for Voting Rights Act violations, the current 2025 mid-decade redistricting was initiated by Texas Republicans in response to Trump's call for gaining "five more seats," not because of court orders. Texas was not under any legal mandate to conduct mid-decade redistricting in 2025.

Sources: Timeline of Texas legislative actions, Trump's public statements about gaining seats, news coverage of the redistricting process initiation

Q: Are there other arguments from opponents worth addressing?

A: Yes, several additional arguments have emerged from prominent opponents. Here are the main ones with detailed analysis:

"This undermines California's independent commission"

The Argument: Opponents argue that Prop 50 destroys the independent redistricting system that California voters established in 2008 and 2010. Charles Munger Jr., who "spent $12 million on the proposition to create the commission," is now leading opposition efforts, arguing that the measure abandons the principles of independent redistricting.

The Response: Supporters counter that the measure explicitly states commission-drawn maps will return in 2031, making this temporary. The constitutional amendment text specifically provides that "The Citizens Redistricting Commission established pursuant to Section 1 shall continue to adjust the boundary lines... in 2031, and every 10 years thereafter." Governor Newsom has emphasized this is "intended to be temporary; the measure that will go before voters requires the state to return to nonpartisan map-drawing after the 2030 census."

Key Context: Arnold Schwarzenegger, who originally championed the independent commission, is now opposing Prop 50, calling it a betrayal of reform principles. However, supporters argue that temporarily suspending the commission to counter Republican gerrymandering preserves its long-term effectiveness.

"This is partisan gerrymandering"

The Argument: Opponents, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy who "plans on raising $100 million" for opposition efforts, argue that Democrats are engaging in the same partisan gerrymandering they've long criticized Republicans for doing.

The Response: Supporters frame this as a "defensive response" to protect fair representation. As one former redistricting committee member described it, California's measure is an "emergency defensive tactic" in response to aggressive Republican gerrymandering in other states. Supporters argue they're not initiating gerrymandering but responding to it - noting that the constitutional amendment explicitly states it's "In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025."

Nuanced View: This argument highlights the fundamental tension in redistricting politics: when does fighting gerrymandering with gerrymandering become justified? Democrats argue it's defensive; Republicans see it as hypocritical.

"Voters already decided on independent redistricting"

The Argument: Opponents contend that voters already settled this issue in 2008 and 2010 when they approved independent redistricting, and legislators shouldn't be able to overturn voter decisions.

The Response: Supporters emphasize that the measure goes back to voters for approval, maintaining democratic oversight. Unlike Texas, where the legislature acted unilaterally, California is asking voters to weigh in on the changed circumstances. Governor Newsom has stated: "We will go to the people of this state in a transparent way and ask them to consider the new circumstances, to consider these new realities."

Additional Context: The measure includes constitutional language declaring "It is the policy of the State of California to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide," suggesting this is meant as a temporary deviation from, not abandonment of, the principle of independent redistricting.

"This will create an escalating arms race and race to the bottom"

The Argument: Critics worry this sets a precedent for mid-decade redistricting becoming normalized, with states constantly redrawing maps in response to each other.

The Response: Supporters argue that Texas already broke the norm with their 2025 redistricting, and failing to respond would leave Democrats permanently disadvantaged. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has already threatened escalation, saying "Texas is not going to do five: We will add 10 more Republican seats using the same procedure they are using in California."

Strategic Reality: This argument acknowledges that Prop 50 could indeed lead to a redistricting "arms race," but supporters contend it's already begun and California must participate or be left behind.

Sources:

Wikipedia: "2025 California Proposition 50"
SF Gate: "A Palo Alto scientist's $10M plan to kill Calif. redistricting"
Santa Barbara Independent: "Redistricting Duel Between California and Texas Ramps Up"
Various campaign materials and ballot argument submissions
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charles Munger Jr. opposition statements

Sources

Key Sources for Further Reading

Brennan Center for Justice - Comprehensive redistricting research and analysis

Princeton Gerrymandering Project - Academic analysis and state rankings
Public Policy Institute of California - State-specific analysis
All About Redistricting (Loyola Law School) - Legal and procedural information
Supreme Court decisions - Shaw v. Reno (1993), Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
The American Redistricting Project - Nonpartisan database and research

This analysis is based on court records, nonpartisan research organizations, and documented legislative actions from reputable sources. Readers should consider these facts when evaluating claims about gerrymandering practices by either party.