Passing Prop. 50 is essential, says UC Berkeley law school dean | Opinion

I have long believed that all districts should be drawn by independent commissions. Over 25 years ago, as the chair of an elected commission to draft a new Los Angeles City Charter, I urged a provision that would have had city council districts drawn by an independent commission. In 2008, I strongly supported Proposition 11 to create independent commissions in California to draw election districts.

Partisan gerrymandering is inconsistent with the most basic principles of democracy, but I support Proposition 50 because our constitutional democracy cannot exist without meaningful checks and balances. A “yes” on Prop. 50 would allow Democrats to redraw congressional district boundaries that could favor more Democrats being elected to Congress.

I support Prop. 50 because it is a direct response to President Donald Trump’s attempts to influence red states to redraw districts to elect more Republicans in order to protect the GOP majority in the House of Representatives. If Trump is allowed to weaponize gerrymandering for the purpose of maintaining total of Congress, he avoids the constitutional checks and balances meant to protect our democracy. That’s why Prop. 50 is essential.

Partisan gerrymandering is nothing new: It occurs when the political party that controls a legislature draws election districts to maximize safe seats for that party. For example, it happens when a Republican-controlled state legislature draws state legislative districts to maximize safe seats for Republicans, or when a Democratic-controlled city council draws its districts to maximize seats for Democrats. Both political parties do it when they can, though Republicans have used it more consciously and more successfully than Democrats in recent years.

The practice of gerrymandering takes its name from an early governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, he led the drawing of districts in Massachusetts to help his party gain seats. During this process, Gerry apparently remarked that one district looked like a salamander — and the name “gerrymandering” took hold. In the March 26, 1812, edition of the Boston Gazette, the newspaper ran a cartoon of this district with the caption: “The Gerry-Mander: A new species of Monster.”

Although gerrymandering has been done throughout American history, how it is carried out in modern times has changed dramatically. For most of American history, those engaging in gerrymandering would choose between several maps based on their predictions of which would yield the greatest partisan advantage. Today, computers are used to generate thousands of maps, and officials choose the one that provides the best chance of partisan success. Intricate computer algorithms and detailed data about voters allow map drawers to engage in partisan gerrymandering with surgical precision.

Gerrymandering rigs elections. The central precept of democracy is that voters choose their elected officials, but partisan gerrymandering means that elected officials are choosing their voters. As the Supreme Court itself once observed, the “core principle of republican government” is “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”

Unfortunately, in 2019, the Supreme Court, in Rucho v. Common Cause, held that federal courts cannot hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering. Reversing the lower courts, the high court was split along ideological lines, with five Republican-appointed justices in the majority and four justices appointed by Democratic presidents in dissent. It was impossible to ignore the underlying political reality that a majority of state legislatures were controlled by Republicans, given that “blue” states are more likely to have independent commissions draw election districts.

If the Supreme Court had decided Rucho v. Common Cause differently, partisan gerrymandering would have ended in every state. But Trump has seized on the inability to challenge partisan gerrymandering to urge Republican-controlled state legislatures to engage in new gerrymandering to create more Republican-controlled congressional districts. Texas has redrawn its congressional districts to create as many as five more seats likely to be carried by Republicans. Now, both North Carolina and Missouri have redrawn districts to create another likely Republican seat in each state.

Districts are drawn after the census at the beginning of each decade. Redrawing districts in the middle of a decade is highly unusual. But the norm against this — like so many norms of government — have been discarded by Trump.

It is in this context that Prop. 50 is now before California voters. It would not permanently repeal the use of independent commissions to draw congressional districts in California, but it would suspend this for the next three elections. Prop. 50 would allow a new map of districts to be used for the 2026 congressional election that has the potential of creating five more Democratic representatives in Congress from California.

Fairness requires that all sides play by the same rules. It cannot be that states with Republican-controlled legislatures engage in partisan gerrymandering while those with Democratic-controlled state legislatures adhere to good government and eschew partisan gerrymandering — that just increases the likelihood that Republicans will control Congress.

Of course, that is exactly what Trump and Republicans want. Democrats need to win only three more seats in 2026 to control the House of Representatives.

Beyond fairness, our country desperately needs to make sure that there are checks and balances. It is clear that the Republican-controlled Congress is no check at all on Trump.

I wish Prop. 50 were not necessary and that Republicans had not tried to rig congressional elections by engaging in mid-decade redistricting. But in light of what they already have done, passing Prop. 50 is essential.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

This story was originally published October 28, 2025 at 10:21 AM with the headline "Passing Prop. 50 is essential, says UC Berkeley law school dean | Opinion."