This letter is in response to Democratic Club President Susan Chandler’s of October 29, 2025. We gather that, in her letter, she is asking for a Yes on Proposition 50 because of her dislike of Trump’s policies. This is neither a good nor logical basis, upon which to make your decision about how to cast your vote. We would like to offer reasonable points to consider before you decide how to cast your vote, if you haven’t already.
We already have a voter-approved, bipartisan, independent redistricting commission that is authorized to draw congressional boundaries every 10 years in conjunction with the census.
Proposition 50 is being sold as a way to protect democracy, but when you look closer, it actually does the opposite. Prop 50 gives California the power to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade, before the 2030 census. Supporters say that “levels the playing field,” but that’s not leveling the field — that’s changing the rules halfway through the game. The Constitution sets up redistricting to happen after every census for a reason: to keep the process consistent and fair nationwide. Letting one state jump ahead and rewrite maps whenever it wants would only make things more political, not less.
Let’s take a look at what will happen if the lines are redrawn for CA District 3 (which includes South Lake Tahoe). Our District is being targeted for change to be more favorable to Democrats in next year’s election. This is a concerted effort to silence conservative voices and tilts the playing field by adding traditionally voting Democrat regions in Sacramento and subtracting the mainly Republican voting counties on the current map. Our mountain community has nothing in common with East Sacramento County voters. The redrawing represents a silencing of conservatives and independents and is an unfair way to gain 5 more Democrat seats in the House. Just because Texas gerrymandered seats, does not mean California should also play the game and effectively disenfranchise voters in other parties.
One of the main selling points is that Prop 50 “gives voters the power.” That sounds great — who doesn’t want more voter control? But in reality, the maps wouldn’t come directly from voters; they’d come from political insiders and commissions already tied to Sacramento. California already has one of the most independent redistricting systems in the country — voters built it to prevent exactly this kind of political interference. Prop 50 would undo that independence in the name of an “emergency,” which is really just another word for “shortcut.”
Supporters also say the measure is “fair and proportional,” but how fair can a rushed, mid-decade redistricting really be? When maps are drawn under political pressure, fairness usually takes a back seat to partisanship. Real fairness comes from transparency and a process that doesn’t change every time someone doesn’t like the results of an election. In addition, gerrymandering doesn’t pass “the shoe on the other foot test” either, because we can expect other States (red ones) to do the same thing and balance out unfair representation. Gerrymandering is a slippery slope where the voters are destined to lose depending on which party is in power. Enough already. If your party’s platform and ideas are good, you should be able to win an election on those merits, not by redrawing voting districts.
Proponents say Prop 50 is “temporary.” But “temporary” political powers have a funny way of sticking around. Once California claims it can rewrite district maps whenever it wants, what’s to stop future politicians from doing the same thing? Even if it expires in 2030, the damage is done — the precedent is set that election rules can be rewritten whenever it’s convenient.
Finally, we hear that Prop 50 “commits to fair redistricting everywhere.” That’s just political marketing. California can’t control what other states do. All it can do is follow the rules and lead by example — and breaking those rules isn’t leadership. If every state decided to redraw maps mid-decade, we’d end up with chaos, constant lawsuits, and no stability in our elections. And no oppositional considerations. No dialogue. Just one party in charge, but obviously, having lost the election, and disliking the current leadership, that is just what Democrats are hoping for. That is the thesis of Ms. Chandler’s letter.
So at the end of the day, Prop 50 isn’t really about protecting democracy — it’s about bending the system for short-term gain. It weakens California’s independent redistricting commission, undermines trust in our election process, and sets a dangerous example for the rest of the country.
These are all the reasons we recommend a NO vote on Proposition 50.
–REPUBLICAN WOMEN OF CALIFORNIA – SLT