Ahead of the November 4 special election in California, it was easy to predict the success of a legislative gerrymander under Prop 50. When the measure was projected to be victorious the second polls closed, it didn’t surprise anyone.

As the numbers came in, the "Yes" vote stayed above 60%.

As the special election approached, the question became less about if Prop 50 was going to pass. The bigger question was: Just how successful was the Democratic Party’s “anti-Trump” messaging going to be in turning out its base? 

Supporters of Prop 50 spent tens of millions of dollars in the fourth most expensive ballot measure campaign in state history making the entire election a referendum on President Donald Trump and his policies.

“People are on edge,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom ahead of November 4. “Folks are scared to death because they might be disappeared on the basis of what they look like or the language they speak.”

The military is on American soil, not overseas. This is what Proposition 50 represents, for those that are concerned about not only themselves but each other, our community, the city, our state, our nation.”

The “Yes on 50” campaign recruited national Democratic figures like U.S. Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, former President Barack Obama, and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to cut ads all focused on Trump.

“You have the power to stand up to Donald Trump,” Newsom said in one of these ads. 

The messaging worked with Democrats, who make up 45% of registered voters. Millions of Californians turned out for a statewide race that was not only conducted in an odd-numbered year, but was the only measure on the ballot in 2025.

A lot of money poured into the November 4 special election to pass Prop 50, including $38 million that Newsom says came from 1.2 million donors from all 50 states – building a national donor base he can use in the near future.

However, the $38 million doesn’t tell the whole story. Prop 50 is the fourth most expensive ballot measure election in state history, pulling in nearly $170 million in total contributions. About three-quarters of this collective amount went to support Prop 50.

10 Biggest Spenders In $150 Million Race for California Prop 50

Big-money donors included the Democratic-aligned House Majority PAC, New York megadonor George Soros, the California Teachers Association, and more.

The “No on 50” campaign was mostly funded by Dr. Charles Munger Jr, a California-based physicist and long-time election reform supporter. Munger was behind the successful 2010 effort to pass independent congressional redistricting at the statewide ballot.

However, once the money he put into opposing Prop 50 dried up, the campaign collapsed. 

Here’s What Prop 50 Really Means

Under Prop 50, the independent congressional map that was approved unanimously by the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) in 2021 will be suspended and replaced by a new map drawn by the Democratic majority in legislature.

It is a map explicitly designed to take 5 seats away from Republicans. If it does what Newsom and Democratic officials planned, it will give their party 92% of the state’s congressional seats until the CRC redraws the districts in 2031.

To clarify, Prop 50 will be in place for the 2026 midterms, 2028 presidential election, and the 2030 midterms. Congressional representation under a new independent map won’t happen again (at the earliest) until the 2032 presidential election.

Newsom pitched Prop 50 as a temporary effort by the Democratic Party to “fight fire with fire.” Texas Republicans are attempting to take 5 seats away from Democrats at the behest of President Donald Trump, so California will take 5 seats from the GOP.

The focus of the pitch was that Trump is a threat to democracy, and the suspension of the state’s independent congressional map was needed to save free and fair elections. U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi asserted that Prop 50 was an act of “self-defense.”

This argument proposes an outcome that is impossible to predict – especially as some analysts suggest Texas Republicans could just as easily lose their gamble. Either way, California and Texas now both have an ‘F’ grade from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.

Opponents of Prop 50 called the measure a “scam.” U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose district is among the most affected by the new map, argued days before the election that while proponents call the Prop 50 “temporary,” he doesn’t believe politicians will give up the maps in a few years.

“Nothing is really temporary when it comes to the self-interests of politicians,” he said.

According to data compiled by Ballotpedia, Kiley’s district (CA-3) will go from a partisan score of R+3.8% to D+10.2% based on how voters within the new boundaries cast their ballots in the 2024 presidential election. But this isn’t the most dramatic partisan shift under Prop 50.

District 1, which is held by Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa and located in northern California, will go from R+25 to D+12 – a 37-point shift. District 41, held by Republican Rep. Ken Calvert, will shift 20 points to D+14.

There is a lingering question mark on what California Democrats will say 5 years from now. There is no evidence yet that they will not let the CRC resume its work in 2031 after the next census. Independent redistricting is still required under the state constitution.

However, in statements offered to IVN, CRC Commissioner J. Ray Kennedy, Ph.D, said the commission was downsized by the California Legislature two years ago, which has made it difficult to prepare for the next round of redistricting. 

This is something that was scarcely reported by the press in California and something many voters didn’t know about.

Even if the map under Prop 50 remains temporary, its impact will not be. Reshaping congressional districts to such a degree will have lasting implications on candidate pathways and congressional seniority well beyond the next census.

It will have longer ramifications on representation than many Californians realize.