Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Fight fire with fire

The change in voting districts would only be temporary; the stakes are too high not to level the playing field

By Roberta Millstein

As Californians, we are used to having little say in national politics. But now Proposition 50, "The Election Rigging Response Act," will be on the ballot this November. This is our chance to really make a difference — to stand up for our democracy.  And as a largely liberal city, we Davisites have the opportunity to turn out in force.

Donald Trump asked Texas to rig its election maps to gain more Republican seats in the House, and Texas readily complied. Prop 50 is California's response to this rigging attempt. It would redraw our maps so as to counter Texas's, easing the path for more Democratic representation in the House than we currently have.

Importantly, this change to our maps would only be temporary. The maps expire in 2030, at which point the California Redistricting Commission’s authority to draw congressional districts would be restored.

We've seen the dire attacks on our democracy: the deployment of armed national guards in our cities, the erosion of checks and balances, the decimation of due process, retaliation against Trump's critics and perceived enemies, interference in the governance of higher education, erratic foreign policy with regard to tariffs and our longstanding friends, defunding of scientific and medical research, and more. The stakes could not be higher.

Some worry about the precedent that this sets for the future — that California will return to the bad old days of gerrymandering on a permanent basis. Should we be so lucky to have a functioning democracy in 2030, I am sure we can keep our independent redistricting, just as we did before.  And again, the districts created by Prop 50 will automatically expire in 2030.

The situation is desperate. We must fight fire with fire. Vote "yes" on Prop 50.

Information for how to get involved in the campaign, including donating, is here:  https://stopelectionrigging.com.

[A slightly shorter version of this letter appeared in the Davis Enterprise].

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

17 responses to “Fight fire with fire”

  1. Ron O

    And what if Texas doesn’t “change back” in 2030?
    There was an article in The Chronicle recently from a liberal/Democratic supervisor in Sonoma County who is concerned that this would create more a rural/urban divide (more than already exists), although she is supporting the redistricting proposal regardless. Note how her own (liberal) Sonoma county district would be lumped-in with more-conservative districts, apparently to further disenfranchise conservative districts.
    (As a side note, have you ever heard of the State of Jefferson?)
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/redistricting-sonoma-lynda-hopkins-20824578.php
    Truth be told, I’m increasingly finding that neither Democrats nor Republicans represent me, very well. Or more accurately, I’m finding it difficult to latch onto some of the issues that either of those parties are supposedly adamant about. As such, I’m not much of a fan of Newsom, Scott Wiener, or Aguiar-Curry.
    Nor am I a supporter of identity politics, to say the least. (This is probably the area in which I’m most opposed to what Democrats try to push – even more than their alliance with development/business interests.) This is also the reason, for example, that I’m concerned about environmental groups’ direction in regard to tribes. Environmental groups have increasingly become social justice organizations, rather than protectors of the environment/land for everyone.

    Reply
  2. Greg Rowe

    This column was published this morning as a “Letter to the Editor” in the Enterprise, and I was impressed then with the message it conveyed. Reading it again, I am convinced that the CA redistricting measure must be passed in order to offset the efforts by “Don the Con” to completely turn the political system on its head. Thanks, Roberta, for an excellent summary of the problem and the need for this solution.

    Reply
  3. Dan Cornford

    I could not agree more with Roberta on this one. We must fight back! To be sure, as the NYT has shown, Republicans would probably come out on top if this were done nationally. But Rep. states will do what Texas is doing anyway. And not surprisingly the redistricting drive has been funded by big money. See Tim Redmond’s article in 48 Hills entitled: “The big (GOP) money attacking Newsom’s redistricting plan,” https://48hills.org/2025/08/the-big-gop-money-attacking-newsoms-redistricting-plan/.
    When it comes to 2030, let’s just see how the cards have played out and if necessary pass another redistricting measure. I agree with what some of what Ron says about the Democrats. However, I think the weakness and divisions among them are greatly exaggerated. Just look at the support for Zohran Mamdani in NYC as well as the vast crowds that Bernie Sanders and AOC drew on their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. This is not to mention a string of victories that the Democrats have racked up in special elections since Trump was elected.

    Reply
  4. Keith

    “Democrats alarmed over new data showing voters fleeing to GOP”
    “In total, Republicans added up to 4.5 million voters compared to Democrats, creating a huge hole that could set Democrats back for years.”
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5462604-voter-registration-shift-democrats/

    Reply
  5. Roberta L. Millstein

    So this isn’t going to drift into a general discussion of the pros/cons of Democrats. It’s about Prop 50. Not negotiable. Recent and further comments that are off-topic will not be posted, per our usual policy. (Comments complaining about the policy or arguing about what does and does not fit will likewise not be posted).

    Reply
  6. Ron O

    Roberta: You can obviously post this (or not), but the purpose of Proposition 50 is directly related to increasing the power of Democrats (in response to Texas’ actions to increase the power of Republicans).
    So it is a partisan issue.
    It’s not likely that many Republicans (and perhaps some Democratic rural residents) in this state are going to support this, and it’s likely to create a further wedge in regard to how they view themselves as “separate” in places like far-Northern California.
    In the long run (if this keeps up), I suspect that it will create more division between states, as well. (Despite the fact that a lot of Californians have moved to Texas, for example.)
    And the result of this will be that the “single party system” (within California itself) will become even more-pronounced.
    I’ll probably support the measure myself (to counter what Texas did), but I don’t like it.

    Reply
  7. Alan C. Miller

    I will be voting NO on Prop. 50
    I know most of you view this as an US (Dems) vs. THEM (Reps) thing. This schism has become so extreme that it is ruining the country. I refuse to vote for anyone I don’t actually want in office. I believe the last two-party person I voted for was the first Obama, but not the 2nd term as I was too disappointed by his performance. I’ve never voted for Trump or any Dem since. I quit the Dem party in the 1980’s and would never join the Reps.
    For me it is US vs. THEM (both parties). A lot of people can’t see beyond their hatred of Trump and his policies to see that Dems and Reps fighting each other is exactly what THEY want, so they can continue to blind us and grind us through the slaughterhouse. I never vote ‘strategic’, as its all evil. I only vote my conscience.
    The only hope is rank-choice voting for every level of elections. But THEY will never allow it, so the Dempublicans can stay in power and keep y’all at each other’s throats.
    I know some people go absolutely ape-S when I say this and attack me for not being against the Evil Trump, but I consider the thought of Evil Harris just as terrifying.
    Go ahead, attack me. I’ve heard it all before.

    Reply
  8. Roberta L. Millstein

    I actually don’t view this as a Republican vs Democrat thing. I am a barely and sometimes-registered, sometimes-not, Democrat. I usually register just to vote in the local CA-DEM election and then they will do something to piss me off and I will unregister again.
    I will say again the things that I am seeking to overturn: “the dire attacks on our democracy: the deployment of armed national guards in our cities, the erosion of checks and balances, the decimation of due process, retaliation against Trump’s critics and perceived enemies, interference in the governance of higher education, erratic foreign policy with regard to tariffs and our longstanding friends, defunding of scientific and medical research, and more.”
    Those things should be things that all Americans, Democrat or Republican or independent, are deeply concerned about. I know some people want to downplay or deny that these things are happening, but the evidence is really all quite clear and not at all hidden or subtle. Trump certainly isn’t trying to hide any of it (quite the opposite).
    If there was some other means to do this other than to have the CA Democrats counter the TX Republican votes I’d be all over it. If there was a third-party or other ranked choice voting, I’d be all over it. Usually I am all about standing for principle, but (repeating myself) the stakes are just too high here.

    Reply
  9. Ron O

    Honestly, Roberta – some of what you cite above ARE partisan issues, or have been adopted as such.
    I’m not interested-enough to refute each one, especially since it might appear that I’m “defending” tem (But I do know most of the arguments, either way.)
    I do know that I don’t like Newsom – maybe even less than Trump.

    Reply
  10. Ron O

    Typo – missed the “h” in “them”.

    Reply
  11. Roberta L. Millstein

    If the things on my list are partisan, that has only been true since January 2025 or later. These used to be things that all Americans believe in. These are the cornerstones of a democracy.

    Reply
  12. Roberta L. Millstein

    I would add: prop 50 is not about Newsom. He is the one who proposed it, but it’s not for him, and one can dislike him and yet still support the proposition. I myself I’m not terribly crazy about him as our governor. I like some things he’s done, but not others.

    Reply
  13. Ron O

    Roberta says: If the things on my list are partisan, that has only been true since January 2025 or later. These used to be things that all Americans believe in. These are the cornerstones of a democracy.
    You do realize that this is the second time that Trump was elected, right? And that his platform was supported prior to 2025, as well.
    You’ll probably recall that this guy was convicted, accused of instigating the 2021 takeover of the Capitol, made comments about “criminals and rapists” coming into the country back in 2016, repeatedly suggested that his political enemies should be in prison, bragged about grabbing women by the (blank), claimed that cats and dogs were being eaten, etc.
    And yet, still won re-election and has had control of his own party since his first term in office. I’d say that’s partisan in nature, and has been since well-before 2025. I don’t believe that his supporters would describe his actions in his second term in the same way that you do. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he would STILL beat Kamala Harris (or someone like Newsom), if there was a “do-over”.
    The only difference I can see (between his two terms) is that he’s more-aggressively implementing his policies, this time.

    Reply
  14. Roberta L. Millstein

    Trump’s platform did not include the things on my list. Yes, he made the occasional remark about his enemies being in prison (plus the repeated “lock her up” re: Hillary), but nothing that people took seriously and nothing like the extent of who and how he is targeting people.
    He said he was going to deport criminal immigrants, not all immigrants, and not without due process.
    The rest did not appear at all. Yes, he said the things that you said, but they don’t amount to, e.g., doing away with the separation of powers.

    Reply
  15. Ron O

    Roberta says: “He said he was going to deport criminal immigrants, not all immigrants, and not without due process.”
    My recollection is that all 11 million illegal immigrants were at risk of being deported.
    Here’s what AI says, regarding that:
    “As president-elect, Donald Trump has stated his intention to deport all undocumented immigrants in the United States, which he has called “the largest deportation operation in American history”. News reports indicate that his administration has already begun implementing policies toward this goal in its first months.”
    (At least one of the reference sources from AI apparently includes this article, from 2024):
    “But on deporting millions of people, he went into detail”
    “The topic on which Trump had the most concrete details is his plan to deport many millions of undocumented immigrants.”
    “Trump promised mass deportation in 2016 too”
    “While he did not employ an Eisenhower-like effort the first time he was president, Trump is bringing the pledge back. Trump told Time he would target between 15 million and 20 million people who he said are undocumented in the US. The exact number of undocumented immigrants is not clear. It is probably smaller than Trump says.”
    “Trump was asked if his effort would include the military”
    “It would,” Trump said, adding, “when we talk military, generally speaking, I talk National Guard.”
    “He added that he would “have no problem using the military, per se,” although he thinks the National Guard would suffice.”
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/trump-immigration-what-matters#:~:text=Trump%20promised%20mass%20deportation%20in,migrants%20with%20a%20criminal%20record.
    (So I dunno – maybe you weren’t paying attention?)

    Reply
  16. Roberta L. Millstein

    My list:
    * the deployment of armed national guards in our cities: Trump never said he would do this. Deploying armed national guards without the state governor asking for it, much less over the objection of the state governor, has never been done before and goes against the “state’s rights” that Trump supposedly stood for.
    * the erosion of checks and balances: Trump never said that he would take over Congress’s power of the purse or Congress’s control over federal agencies (see: DOGE). And his administration has time and time again lied to judges, attacked judges, delayed and skirted and obfuscated judges. Even Supreme Court Justice Roberts reprimanded the administration for this. Checks and balances of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government are key to not having an authoritarian government.
    * the decimation of due process: Trump never said that he would (try to: the courts have not been happy with this) deport and prosecute people without due process. Due process is literally the basis for all freedoms, because otherwise you can be accused of anything, no evidence needed, deport you or throw you in jail.
    * retaliation against Trump’s critics and perceived enemies: as I said already, yes, he did signal some of this, but not to the extent he has done it (and many people did not take him seriously). Again, a government that prosecutes critics is an authoritarian regime, not a free one.
    * interference in the governance of higher education: Trump did not say he would do this and it is not the act of a free country that allows for free speech.
    * erratic foreign policy with regard to tariffs and our longstanding friends: Trump promised to end the war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine in a day, but he has on and off reneged on his support for Ukraine, and that is still unresolved. As for tariffs, those have been used by other presidents, but never so many countries and with such high percentages, such that our economy is being destabilized. Hard to have a functioning democracy without a functioning economy. (I believe we have not felt the worse effects of this yet).
    * defunding of scientific and medical research: Again, he never said he would do this, and again, this is not an act that supports freedom (as some courts have ruled, given the way he has canceled them).
    Now that I go back to the list in my original post, I see that I didn’t even mention immigration. So I don’t know where you got that from. I do think that he is deporting many immigrants who are here legally, and he didn’t say he would do that. He also said he would focus on violent immigrants who are here illegally first, but again, he’s not done that either. But that’s a separate point from the main claims I make in my post.

    Reply
  17. Keith

    It looks like the GOP is going to fight fire with fire. With most democrat run states already gerrymandered to the hilt there’s plenty of room for GOP run states to further gerrymander increasing their hold on the House.
    “Missouri is actively considering a mid-decade congressional gerrymander, with Republican Governor Mike Kehoe calling a special legislative session to redraw district maps.”
    Newsom has possibly really opened the goor for Republicans.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Greg Rowe Cancel reply