As California voters gear up for a statewide special election on Nov. 4 over the closely watched Proposition 50, Capitol Weekly, CalMatters and the University of California Student and Policy Center hosted a debate, “California Votes: Proposition 50,” on Tuesday, Oct. 14.

Moderated by Capitol Weekly’s editor Rich Ehisen and CalMatters’ Juliet Williams, the debate featured proponent Rusty Hicks, Chair of the California Democratic Party, arguing in favor of the proposition. Opposing the proposition was Patricia Sinay of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

In response to the mid-decade redistricting efforts led by Republicans in Texas, California officials have proposed a constitutional amendment, Proposition 50, that would temporarily suspend the state’s independent redistricting commission and permit the legislature to redraw congressional maps.

In her opening remarks, Sinay detailed the diverse makeup of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission and its diligence in 2020 in drawing maps in accordance with the California Constitution. She argued that the maps proposed under Proposition 50 failed to follow the same procedures and that Democrats should seek alternative routes to address the challenges posed by Trump’s efforts to secure additional congressional seats around the country.

“Prop. 50 proposes a gerrymandered map that disenfranchises millions of Californian voters and undermines California’s independent redistricting commission, leaving the door open for politicians to exploit the next crisis and rig another election,” Sinay said.

In his opening statement, Hicks focused on what the proposition could mean on the national level and emphasized that the measure was a temporary but necessary response to the growing partisan influence over congressional districts. He argued that with the Trump administration pressuring states like Texas to redraw maps in his favor ahead of the 2026 midterms, California had a responsibility to “step forward and speak out.”

“Proposition 50 is an emergency measure. Proposition 50 levels the playing field. Proposition 50 is temporary. At the end of the day, Proposition 50 puts the power in the hands of voters to make the final decision,” Hicks said.

In 2008, voters approved Proposition 11, which created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Since 2011, redistricting in California has been in the hands of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, following voter approval of Proposition 20. The first question posed asked the proponents to explain why voters should forgo the independent commission’s process to support Proposition 50.

“We are in a different moment in 2025. Proposition 50 actually reaffirms a commitment to fair independent redistricting, calling upon the rest of the country to draw their lines through an independent redistricting process and returns to the independent commission following the 2030 census,” Hicks said.

In response to the question of whether there are other ways to resist what the federal government is doing, Sinay argued that the people of California were not heard on the matter. She agreed that actions coming out of Washington such as those involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, were “abhorrent,” but insisted that gerrymandering was not the answer for California.

“​​California’s gerrymandering is not fighting back. It’s cheating,” Sinay said. “This is copying the very authoritarian tactics we Democrats have spent our entire fighting lives fighting against. Voters go to the violent boss, and their votes make a difference.”

Later, Hicks would argue that calling Proposition 50 authoritarian was “a bit of a stretch given that it’s ultimately before the voters for consideration.” He noted that, unlike Texas, which changed the district lines themselves, California’s proposal “puts the question directly to voters.”

The debate later shifted to whether the proposed maps would benefit or harm disadvantaged communities. Hicks cited analyses from the Public Policy Institute of California and UCLA’s AAPI Initiative, saying the maps promote AAPI representation, add Latino influence and leave Black districts intact. Sinay disputed that claim, arguing that communities such as Stockton and Lodi were “cut apart,” and that the process only considers it “maps, not people.”

When asked why voters should trust that California would return to independent redistricting after 2030, Hicks said the measure’s own language ensures that outcome. “That’s what Proposition 50 says,” he noted. “That’s the language in Proposition 50, which is to return to an independent redistricting process following the 2030 census.”

Sinay countered that “politicians don’t like to give up power,” warning that temporary measures “can often set a precedent.” She argued that Proposition 50 could open the door for future manipulation of the process. “Unilateral disarmament means asking voters to give up their voice and relinquish their power to hold politicians accountable,” she said.

The debate also touched on the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais, which could reshape redistricting nationwide. Hicks said the maps “sought to abide by both the constitutional requirements and the Voting Rights Act.” At the same time, Sinay argued that they “may meet federal requirements” but fail the California Constitution’s mandate to consider communities of interest.

“The best way to fight authoritarian governments is for the people to organize and move forward. It’s not the politicians. Politicians have never stopped authoritarian governments,” she said.

Both sides also acknowledged that the proposition could face legal challenges if enacted. Hicks noted that existing litigation already surrounds the proposition. Sinay added that the commission had struggled to secure legal representation after the state attorney general cited a conflict of interest, arguing that the measure was structured “to get around ending up at the courts.”

Hicks responded that such an approach “falls woefully short” of the urgency facing California and the nation. “You have an administration that is essentially out of control, with virtually no check from the legislative branch and virtually no check from the Supreme Court,” he said. “Prop. 50 is not perfect, but it is needed to respond at this particular moment.”

In their closing remarks, Hicks described Proposition 50 as “an emergency measure that responds to what Texas and other Republican-held states have done.” Sinay warned that “gerrymandered maps are not the appropriate response” and urged voters to “stand up and fight for our democratic system” in her closing statement.

 

Want to see more stories like this? Sign up for The Roundup,
the free daily newsletter about California politics from the editors of Capitol Weekly.
Stay up to date on the news you need to know.

Sign up below, then look for a confirmation email in your inbox.