Tuesday is the deadline to vote in the statewide special election!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Below is our Green Voter Guide for the November 4 statewide special election, about Proposition 50, regarding Congressional redistricting. If you can't find your ballot, or have questions about your registration status, or similar matters, please contact your county elections office via this website: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/county-elections-offices

Also, in case you were wondering, yes, it's legal to cast a "blank ballot" (that is, a ballot with neither "Yes" nor "No" marked) -- and if everything else is properly filled out (such as your signature for mail-in ballots), then you'll be counted as having cast a vote. But of course, please take action ASAP, as only 4 days remain in which to vote!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
November 4, 2025
Special Statewide Election
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State Proposition 50 -- Congressional Redistricting
No Endorsement
(We need proportional representation!)


There are good reasons to vote "Yes" on Prop. 50, and there are also significant reasons to vote "No" on Prop. 50 -- therefore the Green Party of Alameda County is not making an endorsement on this measure. However, it's also important to understand what the main pro and con arguments are, so you can make a better personal decision on how you'll vote.


How we Got Here

To start, let's first review what Prop. 50 is about, and why this special election is being held. The impetus for Prop. 50 began this past Summer, when the Texas legislature, at President Trump's urging, started to consider a highly unusual bill to gerrymander the Texas congressional districts so as to give the Republicans five additional U.S. House seats. (Normally congressional districts are only redistricted once every 10 years, following U.S. census results).

California Democrats, led by Governor Newsom, then announced that they would counter Texas's gerrymandering with their own redistricting plan if the Texas bill became law. On August 3, about two weeks after the special session to consider the Texas bill began, most Texas Democrats left the state, in order to deny the Republicans a voting quorum.

Then, about a week later, Newsom sent a letter to President Trump, stating that California would halt its mid-decade redistricting plans if other states called off their efforts. But Trump did not respond, so Newsom announced that the redistricting plan for California would then move forward, and a few days after that, most Texas Democrats returned back to their state.

With a voting quorum once again in place, the Texas gerrymandering bill was then approved by the legislature on August 23 and signed into law on August 29. And meanwhile, the California gerrymandering plan was approved by California's legislature on August 21, and signed into law that same day. In addition, beyond Texas and California, at least ten other states are considering gerrymandering their Congressional districts: Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Utah for the Republicans, and Illinois and Maryland (plus New York for 2028) for the Democrats.


What Prop. 50 Will Do

Proposition 50, as an essentially mirror image of Texas's plan, is designed to give California Democrats five additional US House seats. Prop. 50's new Congressional districts would then be used for the next 3 California elections (in 2026, 2028, and 2030), in the same way that Texas would use their new Congressional districts through 2030. Then in 2030, after the 2030 census results become available, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission would again be used, to create fairly-drawn districts for the elections from 2032 through 2040. (The California Citizens Redistricting Commission would also create the districts following every census thereafter, in 2040, 2050, etc.). Finally, the proposition also calls upon the US Congress to require fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.


'Proportional Representation' Would Be a Much Better Solution

A fundamental reason why we're having these battles over Congressional districts is because the United States, unlike most of the world's democracies, uses a "winner-take-all, single-member district" voting system. Our voting system therefore guarantees that many voters will simply not receive representation. Specifically, within each district, the voters who are members of political parties other than the party of the winning candidate will not be represented by the single elected official from that district. But if we were to use proportional representation, then multiple candidates would instead be elected from a district, to represent the voters in proportion to the votes cast.

For example, here in Alameda county, there are 4 Congressional districts (numbers 10,12,14, and 17). The Democratic Party is the dominant party in each of the 4 districts, which means that Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and members of the Peace and Freedom and American Independent Parties are shut out from having elected members in those districts. And similarly, in areas where the Republican party dominates, then Democratic party voters (along with Greens, Libertarians, etc.) will be shut out of representation in those districts.

However, suppose we combined 10 of California's current Congressional districts into one large district, which would then elect 10 US House members. And suppose further that in that one large district, the Democrats received 50% of the vote, the Republicans 30%, the Greens 10%, Peace and Freedom 6%, and the other parties combined, 4%. Therefore, in proportion to the votes received, the Democrats would receive 5 of the Congressional seats, the Republicans 3, the Greens 1 (and Peace and Freedom would also receive 1). So in that scenario, all of the parties which polled over 5% of the vote would then receive representation -- as compared to the current system where a plurality of party votes (almost always requiring over 40% of the total) is needed to elect a candidate.

Because proportional representation (PR) is a fairer system which better-represents the voters' preferences, it is being adopted by increasing numbers of countries around the world, more than 130 already. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, all Eastern Europe countries except Belarus are using PR. In addition, New Zealand (1993), Scotland and Wales (1999), Chile (2015), and Armenia (2017) are now also using PR.

Here in California, the ProRep Coalition is working to enact PR, probably starting with our State Assembly. We strongly encourage you to support them -- please see: https://www.prorepcoalition.org/how-reform-happens for more info.
But of course, PR won't be on this year's ballot (and almost certainly, it won't be on next year's ballot either -- rather, the Pro Rep Coalition is working to have a ballot measure ready for the 2028 elections). So in the meantime, how should you vote on this year's Prop. 50?


Weighing the Pros and Cons

Here are some of the key points to consider for voting Yes or No on Prop. 50. A Yes vote would help make it more difficult for the highly problematic President Trump and his Republican allies to enact nationwide legislation, since passage of Prop. 50 increases the Democrats' chances of winning back a majority of US House seats. But a No vote would help prevent California from using unfair, gerrymandered Congressional districts for the next 3 US House elections. Another factor to consider are the groups and individuals which are funding each of the campaigns. The major campaign donors for "Yes on Prop. 50" include Democratic Party groups and candidates (over $13 million, with a $7.6 million donation from the House Majority PAC being the largest single contribution), labor unions (over $12 million with $3 million from the California Teachers Association and over $2.6 million from the California Nurses Association being the two largest contributions), and $10 million from the 501(c)4 group, the Fund for Policy Reform. The "No on Prop. 50" campaign has just two major donors, as we go to press: just over $30 million from former Republican Party official Charles Munger, Jr., and $5 million from the No on Prop. 50 Congressional Leadership Fund.

Until we can enact proportional representation, the apportionment of districts should be as fair as is possible, so that's a strong argument to vote No on Prop. 50. But if other states which are controlled by Republicans are gerrymandering their districts to unfairly elect more Republicans, should states whose elected officials are mostly Democrats just stand by and allow the Republicans to maintain that unfair advantage? (Which of course is a strong argument to vote Yes on Prop. 50.) Or -- to boil it all down into a single sentence: Which is more important to you, (A) Maintaining fairly-drawn California Congressional districts, especially for the next 6 years, or (B) Helping the Democrats to win back the US House (so they might help slow down Trump's plans)? As we said, there are good reasons to vote Yes, and understandable reasons to vote No on Prop. 50.

(And in the meantime, please do support proportional representation and the ProRep Coalition )