Why Voting "No on Prop 50" Makes Sense
The Californer/10329773

BAY AREA, Calif. - Californer -- Prop 50 is Sacramento's +$235 million* attempt to gerrymander past the will of California voters.  As "No on Prop 50 – Protect Voters First" explains: "In 2010, California voters overwhelmingly approved the Voters FIRST Act for Congress — entrusting the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw fair congressional districts."

Of course, power is a heady cocktail; John Adams cautions, "When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny."  California is effectively a one-party state.

Now, entrenched Sacramento politicians point to Texas but that's a bogus argument.  A head-fake.  Here's why: Texas' legislative redistricting approach uses established legislative authority without temporary constitutional exceptions: no ad hoc ballot measure is needed.  Texas' redistricting does not suspend voter-enacted independent commission reforms.  It has lower administrative costs versus running a $200 million ballot campaign, has a clear legal pathway and does not involve reversal of prior principles.

More on The Californer

• California: Governor Newsom supports workers as Trump's shutdown hurts the economy
• California strengthens its pipeline for good-paying jobs, providing $25 million to train more than 22,000 workers through apprenticeship programs
• Hollywood In Pixels Celebrates the 8th Annual Silver Pixel Awards and Announces 2025 Campaign Pixel Winners Los Angeles, CA — Oct
• While the Trump administration cuts programs to fight hate crimes, California is taking action every day
• The AI Journal Publishes Groundbreaking Article

Sacramento's pointing to Texas also fails because Texas has had a huge population migration, with much of the inflow (ironically!) consisting of Californians seeking lower taxes, better schools, better affordability and better economic opportunity.  This demographic shift provides an additional argument in favor of Texas' redistricting approach.

Here's why: growth in Texas justifies redrawing districts to equalize district populations; these new demographics require updated representation; rapid growth increases demand for infrastructure representation; it also reflects the success of pro-growth policies in Texas.

For those who also argue that Prop 50 is a "temporary" response, informed voters know better.  Look no further than sales tax; it was originally set at just 2%.  Now sales tax in the City of Santa Cruz, by way of example, is nearly 5 times that, standing at 9.75%!  Despite this, the City is reportedly +$250 million in unfunded liabilities and the County's unfunded liabilities stand at reportedly +$729 million.

More on The Californer

• Physician Calls for States Nationwide to Ensure ADA Compliance in Independent Commissions
• MEDIA ADVISORY - Strengthening Children's Mental Health Across New Jersey
• Culinage Launches to Preserve Family Recipes and the Stories Behind Them
• NumberSquad Launches Year‑Round Tax Planning Package for Small Businesses and the Self‑Employed
• GlexScale launches a unified model for sustainable SaaS expansion across EMEA

Middle class Californians want a return to smaller government, personal accountability and safe neighborhoods.  Are they interested in a Frankenstein gerrymandering act?  Not in the least.  That's why I stand with my fellow Republicans and common-sense Democrats who enthusiastically urge voters to cast a "NO" vote for Prop 50.

*According to a citation in "How much would CA's new redistricting plans cost?" by CalMatters on August 18, 2025.

(Image Source: Midjourney 2025 with inputs by P. Verbica.)

www.peterverbica.com

Paid for by Verbica for Congress.