Ever since Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, approved a highly controversial mid-decade redistricting of the state in July, Democratic resistance has been fierce. This culminated in Democratic representatives fleeing the state in July, heading to states such as Illinois. The reason the districts were redrawn was simple: it was done at Donald Trump’s behest. This is also what’s inspired other states, like Missouri and Indiana, to redraw their districts in turn.
This has also inspired outrage among Democrat-led states, which is justified. Many of these states have been ‘playing fair’ by having independent redistricting commissions, notably California, and they are now being undermined by the Republicans who hadn’t committed to less politicized districts. California, notably, has decided to redraw their districts and eliminate their commission, and, being the most populous state in America with 52 districts, they expectedly gained national attention for their decision.
What Texas is doing is wrong. It’s totally wrong, and it’s even more wrong that they’re only doing it because Donald Trump said to do it. And it’s even more wrong knowing that 2026 is expected to be a major loss for Republicans in terms of congressional seats and the popular vote. So if California is going to one-up them, in a way, it makes 100% sense.
But first of all: what is redistricting, what is gerrymandering, and what is the problem? Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative districts, and many developed countries do this on a regular basis. The US, for instance, does it every 10 years, following the Census results, gaining or losing districts based on population. Other countries like the UK, Canada and Australia do this too. The majority of countries have independent redistricting commissions, but many US states don’t have one.
Gerrymandering, though, is intentionally drawing biased districts by the party in power to gain as many districts as possible, being able to advance their agenda. The practice originated in 1812, when Elbridge Gerry, the Federalist governor of Massachusetts, drew a district in northeastern Massachusetts that would help his party gain an additional seat in the legislature. The Boston Gazette published a cartoon mocking the new district, calling it a “gerrymander” —a portmanteau of the words “Gerry”(the name of the governor) and “salamander”, alluding to the district’s odd shape. As time went on, redistricting was used to disadvantage people of different races and ethnicities, especially Black, Latino and Asian people.
The problem lies in recent history. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that congressional districts needed to be roughly equal in population, which forced state legislatures to actually draw their districts, as they often didn’t do so prior to the court ruling. As a result, the political gridlock familiar with us today began to slowly grow, and it’s become a particularly bad issue in the last 30 years. However, in recent years, bills have been introduced in Congress to ban partisan gerrymandering, especially the Freedom to Vote Act, which has been killed various times in the Senate after passing the House.
But back to the present: California is voting on the future of the redistricting commission. I support California’s efforts to balance out Texas’s power play, because Republicans are trying to cheat their way into a majority. However, I have an unusual take: I disagree with the Yes on 50 ads.
To start off, many ads that I and other Californians have recently seen say that the move “defends democracy”. I understand that many people feel that democracy is significantly eroding under Donald Trump, which I agree with, and many neutral institutions, such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Yale, and Stanford show consistent data detailing the extensive democratic backsliding the United States is experiencing. So I understand if people feel like it needs to go.
However, many Western democracies, like I mentioned before, have independent commissions to redraw districts, which most places in the US don’t. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican and the former governor of California in the 2000s, led the fight for an independent commission, which succeeded in 2008, and he now vocally opposes Prop 50. I think it’s ironic that an ad that claims to defend democracy is doing so by manipulating the lines on a map that affect us all.
Despite my seemingly contradictory reasoning, I do support Prop 50. Donald Trump, given his steadily falling popularity, should not try to manipulate the congressional districts of our states in order to barely maintain control of the House in 2026. Greg Abbott shouldn’t have approved mid-decade redistricting, and California, the most influential blue state and most populous state in the nation, shouldn’t sit by idly as Trump continues to enact his alarming agenda. But I think that the ads for Yes on 50 are somewhat misleading—democracy, in fact, isn’t going to really be fixed, it’s just going to be equally and oppositely messed with; and if the ads were truly defending democracy in all 50 states, the people behind Yes on 50 would take a more proactive role lobbying other state legislatures with an independent commission and citizen ballot initiatives, like Washington, to follow in California’s footsteps.
I urge you to sit back and consider everything you’ve heard about the ballot measure. If you are an adult, register to vote and vote Yes on 50. If you aren’t quite of age yet, then go out and inform other people about Yes on 50. Every vote matters, no matter how seemingly insignificant, and Trump must be stopped. United we stand, divided we fall. Vote!
