Does this site look plain?

This site uses advanced css techniques

Special Election, Tuesday, 4 November 2025

Each election I research and analyze the propositions on the California ballot to create this voting guide, and they represent nothing other than my own personal view of these measures. I do this analysis on a non-partisan basis, but that doesn't mean I have no opinion. I do, but I believe it's transparent (note that transparency means only that I claim no hidden agenda, not that I'm trying to be unbiased).

I generally have no connection with any group supporting or opposing any of these propositions.

My main intent is to get to the bottom of these issues, knowing that the real purpose is not always evident. Once uncovered, I apply a mainly libertarian eye to them.

I'm more interested in examining the issues thoughtfully than I am in getting you to vote the way I do, so I hope these pages help you understand the issues in front of us.

Educated votes are better votes.

I hope my thoughts are helpful.

Other resources:

Important Note: if you are tempted to say "The hell with it" and just vote "no" on all of them, please do not. An uninformed vote, even a no, may have an unintended consequence that you don't want.

Either educate yourself on the measure, or leave that spot blank. Really. This matters.

Summary of positions

Click each link for the rationale for each position.

Proposition Source My Position Description / Title
California icon Prop 50 Legislature No Redistricting

California icon Prop 50: Redistricting

This measure would temporarily suspend California's non-partisan redistricting commission to allow the state legislature to create new congressional district maps starting in 2026 and reverting to the commission process after the 2030 census. This is in response to the Texas legislature's own redistricting that is expected to give an edge to Republicans in the state.

California Redistricting Commission

The voters approved the creation of this commission in 2008 to cover statewide elections (Prop 11), and then expanded that in 2010 to include Congressional districts via Prop 20.

The goal of the Commission was to make reapportionment as free from political influence as possible—no mean feat, to be sure—and using only legitimate demographic factors to create districts.

They achieved this by pretty onerous requirements for membership on the commission, including:

As far as I can tell, the Commission has been a great success, in part because there is simply no room for professional politicians or lobbyists.

---

Back to today: I hate absolutely everything about this whole situation.

Redistricting to gain political advantage has been going on as long as there has been redistricting, and this is as bipartisan of an issue as I've seen over time: both parties absolutely do this when they are in power.

There have been cases where lines are redrawn explicitly to put an opposition incumbent just outside their current district: it's as shameless as it is audacious.

Residency requirements for the US House

It's curious that that for election to the US House of Representatives, the person only has to live in the state, not necessarily in the district, and there have been a few cases of people running from outside their district and winning.

Tom McClintock (R-CA) is one of them, but this is not common and it's widely seen as an uphill battle to win.

So at the insistence of Pres. Trump, Texas comes along with off-cycle redistricting that will help the Republicans gain several seats in the House: this is not strictly guaranteed (the voters still have to vote) but I presume that those doing the redistricting know their areas.

Off-cycle redistricting is not prohibited, but it is shameless and unprincipled.

With the Republicans having such a narrow majority in Congress, those few seats ought to make a real difference if you care more about winning than playing fair.

Then California comes along and says that two can play that game, with the legislature drawing up new districts that would more or less nullify the Republican advantage in Texas.

I understand that other states are considering getting in on the action as well, showing that everybody gets to play in the race to the bottom.

I'm voting no on this, not because I want the Republicans to win the house due to the Texas shenanigans, but because this is just wrong. Principles ought not become optional when they mean it might cost you something.

Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic to those wanting to vote for it: when the other guy plays dirty, playing clean just means that you lose, and Gov. Newsom - who I generally cannot stand - has been pretty straight up about it without the usual political wishy-washy talk.

Many who are for it are holding their nose for the same reasons I am: it's all just blatant power play, it's disgusting, and for many this is a lesser-evil approach to the abomination in Texas.

My only consolation is that the current batch of Republicans in office have behaved so recklessly and will take a drubbing in the 2026 elections, essentially voiding the benefit of these shenanigans.

I despair for the complete abandonment of principle in favor of strictly power politics; a pox on all of their houses.

My Vote: No

BallotPedia Reference

Those discovering bad/missing links, typos, or even errors in judgment are encouraged to report them to me: steve at unixwiz.net

Last updated: Thu Oct 16 21:47:07 UTC 2025