In California, leaders like California Governor Gavin Newsom are pushing for a new counter-balancing congressional district map that would only take effect if Texas or other states push forward with their own mid-decade redraws. 

The plan, which would add a comparable number of solidly-Democratic seats to counteract states like Texas adding more solidly-Republican seats, is on the November 4th ballot for California voters to decide on.

While Common Cause does not endorse partisan gerrymandering, even when its motive is to offset more extreme gerrymandering by a different party , we recognize that we find ourselves in a unique moment. That’s why we’ve created our Mid-Decade Redistricting Fairness Criteria to determine whether a state’s efforts to redraw their maps mid-decade are aiming to protect voters’ voices, or silence them.

Here’s how California measures up on Common Cause’s six fairness criteria:

1. California’s redistricting plan IS a proportionate response to other states. 

California is proposing a change explicitly aimed at offsetting potential gains made by Texas, not fundamentally reengineering the whole map long term. The proposal has “trigger language,” meaning it would only actually take effect if Texas or other states were to go through with their plans.

2. California’s redistricting process DOES include meaningful public participation.

California has moved to put the proposal on the November 4 ballot. This gives voters far more say than a closed legislative process.

3. California’s redistricting plan DOES consider racial equity.

California’s plan does not reduce the current amount of majority-minority districts. n

4. California’s redistricting leaders HAVE supported federal reform.

Proponents of California’s redistricting proposal have positioned their effort as part of a broader reform conversation. In public statements, leaders like Governor Gavin Newsom have voiced support for reforms such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and federal bans on mid-decade redistricting.

5. California’s leaders DO endorse independent redistricting.

Although California’s plan involves temporarily suspending its usual independent commission, the plan commits to returning to independent mapmaking after 2030. 

6. California’s redistricting plan IS time-limited.

California’s proposal explicitly says the mid-decade map would expire after the 2030 Census, returning to the normal cycle.

That’s a 6/6. California’s approach shows how states can respond to gerrymandering and disenfranchisement in other places without throwing fairness, accountability, and democracy out the window.