Whether You Like It Or Not

Article Series

Newsom's Precedent

When he was mayor of San Francisco, Newsom didn't wait around for the law to catch up with his "principles." He took action. He sanctioned gay marriage. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court told us that Newsom was a bad boy for not letting the courts decide the constitutionality of marriage other than between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, the court held that such a marriage was constitutional.

Right after his victory in court, he made a speech where he made this now famous statement. "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not"

We contend that's he's doing this again in the context of redistricting.

As explained in the second article in this series, the Legislature has the power to enact new district maps any time it wishes.

Yes, the Citizens Redistricting Commission is tasked with certifying district maps once every ten years. That is the maximum that it is empowered to do by the adoption of Proposition 20 (2010).

The Legislature's power was never limited.

If the intention of the proponents of Proposition 20 was to prevent the Legislature from enacting maps, they failed.

What Does Proposition 50 Accomplish?

On its face, it is a constitutional amendment that adds Section 4 to Article XXI of the constitution. The new section is divided into four subdivisions, (a) through (d).

The Legislature enacted this amendment as ACA-8 in a bill (Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 8) that did not need the governor's approval on August 21, 2025. It became Chapter 156 of the laws of 2025.

Subdivision (a) is a policy statement. It tells our Congress it should propose an amendment to the federal constitution. (Fat chance of that ever happening.) The Legislature didn't need to put that in the constitution. It could have accomplished that with a resolution much like states have historically proposed federal constitutional amendments.

Subdivision (b) is a single 97-word sentence containing the operative language of the section. It makes a related enactment, (AB-604), as the maps to be used for all congressional elections until replaced by the CRC in 2031.

(b) In response to the congressional redistricting in Texas in 2025, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or existing law, the single-member districts for Congress reflected in Assembly Bill 604 of the 2025–26 Regular Session pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21400) of Division 21 of the Elections Code shall temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to subdivision (d).

It's curious that it refers to the CRC at all. The reference is only in the context of the expiration of the maps. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just say until the CRC certifies a new map? Then there would be no need for subdivision (d) at all.

Adding superfluous words to any law, let alone a constitution, is rife with potential problems. Courts demonstrate their obeisance to legislatures by always mentioning that they must give meaning to every word that a legislature writes. Courts say that surplusage (extra language without meaning) cannot exist. That being the case, the Legislature must have had something in mind. Maybe the language is being used to strengthen the argument that the maps are only temporary. Maybe, however, the language was placed in both subdivisions (b) and (d) to account for a scenario that we can't glean from the context, such as a plan to cut out the CRC from future map drawing for congressional districts. It's curious. We'll leave it at that.

Since we mentioned it the second article in this series, we note here that even though the attorney general can't read the law, the Legislature can when it refers to the "certification" of the maps drawn by the CRC.

Subdivision (c) establishes the procedure for any legal challenges to Prop 50. There's nothing controversial about it.

Subdivision (d) is not controversial either, but it's a little weird, so we'll examine it. Since neither section 1 nor section (both referenced in (d)) are being changed, it seems superfluous. Because the CRC has no authority or duties outside years ending in one, the language "shall continue" is curious because there has been no discontinuity in the powers and duties of an organization that only exerts power in discreet nine month periods every ten years. It seems redundant at best.

(d) The Citizens Redistricting Commission established pursuant to Section 1 shall continue to adjust the boundary lines of the congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts in conformance with the standards and process set forth in Section 2 in 2031, and every 10 years thereafter as provided in Section 1.

AB-604

AB-604 consists of a series of sections enacted into the Elections Code as Chapter 96 on August 21, 2025. It defines the geographical boundaries of California's 52 congressional districts. Nobody is likely to read the enactment because it is not humanly comprehensible as text. Similarly, the companion maps are not at a scale that is humanly comprehensible.

However, at the very end of Section 1 are two statutes that are relevant. Section 21454 makes the entire set of maps dependent on the approval of Prop 50 by the voters.

21454. This chapter shall become operative only if Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 of the 2025–26 Regular Session is approved by the voters and takes effect, and subdivision (b) of Section 4 of Article XXI of the California Constitution, as added by that constitutional amendment, becomes operative.

Section 21455 is, again, somewhat superfluous or redundant because the maps certified by the CRC always replace the previous maps. It may be just window-dressing to assuage the unwarranted fear that the set of maps are permanent.

21455. This chapter shall remain in effect only until a new map of congressional districts is certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to Section 2 of Article XXI of the California Constitution and, as of that date, is repealed.

The other noteworthy language in AB-604 is Section 3, the urgency declaration, which is discussed below. Just note that all urgency statutes "go into immediate effect."

So, the entire act, Chapter 96 is in effect right now. There is a difference between "effective" and "operative" in legislation. You'll note that Section 21454 establishes the "operative" date. A regular statute is both effective and operative on January 1 of the year following the date the statute was enacted. Sometimes, however, the Legislature needs or wants to delay the operation of a statute for a period of time to allow those effected by it to come into compliance.

For example, a major transparency change to the Brown Act notice provision (Government Code section 54954.2) was enacted in 2016 and became effective on January 1, 2017. Because it affected all local governing bodies, the Legislature gave them a two-year grace period to comply. It only became operative on January 1, 2019. Of course, not a single (literally) local governing body, almost nine years after it became effective, complies with its provisions. Corrupt governments do what corrupt district attorneys allow them to get away with.

Another example is CalRecycle's food separation mandate, which was enacted in 2016, but only became operative in 2022. For all you slaves out there, just wait until the fines for not separating your food waste become operative. The Legislature did the same kind of thing with water usage limits. Eventually, you'll be fined for using too much water.

But back to the subject matter.

So the operative date for the new maps, if a majority of voters vote yes, is whatever date the law provides for measures -- some point after the election is certified.

But remember, it was an urgency statute. It's already effective.

Emergency, Urgency, Schmurgency.

AB-604 is an urgency statute. The constitution requires that urgency statutes comply with some rules. The first two rules are:

Urgency statutes are those necessary for immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. A statement of facts constituting the necessity shall be set forth in one section of the bill.

This is how Section 3 of AB-604 addresses those rules.

This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order that congressional redistricting plans may be implemented as soon as possible, and to ensure the rights of all Californians to equal protection of the laws, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

Notice the phrase "within the meaning of." Remember that, as Newsom was reminded in his gay marriage case, only the courts can make the determination of the meaning of language in the constitution. The constitution, after all (as we discussed in the second article of this series), is a limitation on the Legislature.

So, the Legislature follows the second rule by making the statement of facts. However, the first rule is that an urgency statute is only available "for immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety." A fair reading of that clause is "for immediate preservation of the public peace or for immediate preservation of the public health or for immediate preservation of the public safety." In other words "peace," "health," and "safety" are a list. Riddle me this. How is waiting four months (three months for the election, one month for counting the votes) for an election to be decided immediate? How are any rights of Californians affected by what Texas has done?

Emergencies involving "the public peace," "the public health," or "the public safety" by their very nature involve police powers. Police powers by their very nature (that's always, 100% of the time) result in the abrogation of the people's rights under the guise of an emergency. They never involve "ensuring" any rights.

Just think back a few years to the plandemic. We are not aware of a single urgency statute that was enacted to deal with the purported "public health" emergency. Why? Because the Legislature had long ago given the executive department broad emergency powers in the California Emergency Services Act. In theory, there will never be a need for an urgency statute because the Emergency Services Act covers all emergencies of the nature envisioned by Section 8.

The Legislature uses "urgency statutes" regularly for stated facts that, by no stretch of the imagination, meet the conditions. The statements of fact don't even attempt to couch the urgency in the language of the constitution. As we always remind people, a law without a consequence is merely a suggestion.

In the minds of the Legislature a putative "emergency" is always a "political" emergency. Those occur all the time, such as when the Legislature forgets to make some law or other that it should have passed earlier or such as when some unforeseeable event occurs, exactly like the redistricting in Texas, which is about 1000 miles from California.

We note that none of the legal proceedings connected with Prop 50 have raised the self-evident unconstitutional use of the urgency statute exception to regular order and rules.

In our view, urgency statutes, along with their evil twin, the gut-and-amend scheme, should be expressly prohibited in the constitution.

Believe it or not, Proposition 54 (2016) a purported "transparency" initiative retained the urgency statute language and instigated the gut-and-amend scheme as the Legislature's work-around to prevent transparency. As Peter, Paul, and Mary sang, "When will they ever learn?" You can't trust the Legislature. It has plenary power. You have to take power away when it acts like the criminal enterprise that is its nature.

What Goes on the Ballot?

This should be run-of-the-mill, boring stuff. It isn't due to some glaring omissions.

What goes on the ballot for a statewide measure is governed by Elections Code section 9051.

We're going to discuss a little history, then the omissions, and then the condensed ballot title and summary.

Brief, Relevant Legislative History

The Legislature have been busy bees over the past few years with respect to measures. These recent changes have not yet been challenged in court. Our point in mentioning this is that many years ago the courts basically said that when it comes to statewide measures, the courts will defer to the attorney general's office in the writing the language of both circulating titles and summaries and ballot titles and summaries. In other words the courts would presume that the language met the requirements of the law. This was the shifting of the burden of proof in favor of the government. The said-out-loud reasoning was that the attorney general is an independent actor in the process. The actual reason was more likely that the courts just don't want to be bothered with unhappy voter-initiative and voter-referendum proponents. While the Legislature might have to abide by this presumption, the Legislature has been relatively pleased with the language written for its measures. Prop 50 is a case in point.

So, in 2022, (AB 1416) the Legislature wanted to provide more "information" to voters about both statewide and local measures. The idea was to add the "information" to the ballot so that voters wouldn't be inconvenienced by having to learn about what they were voting for. The added "information" was a list of the names of supporters and a list of the names of opponents. This "information" is printed on the ballot. For statewide measures, the rules for written into section 9051. The law went into effect in 2023 when there would no statewide measures on the ballot.

To conform Elections Code definitions to this change, AB 1416 also extensively changed some definitions. For the purposes of this article, the change to section 303.5 is relevant.

Everything was good.

After the March 2024 Presidential Primary, however, the Legislature realized it needed to tweak things a little, due to its fear of nasty voter-referendums. You see referendums have always confused voters. Often the voters, thinking that they were voting in favor of a controversial law, would actually be voting against it. The change was intended to hamstring voter-referendums. Because it enacted a lot of controversial laws and had placed a couple very controversial measures on the November ballot, it enacted AB-421. Among other changes, it amended sections 303.5 and 9051 for a second time. AB-421 was enacted on September 8, 2023 as another unconstitutional urgency statute. Just for kicks, here's the urgency statement.

SEC. 15. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to give local elections officials the necessary time to implement the changes made by this bill before the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, it is necessary for the bill to take effect immediately.

We guess that the county registrars would have descended on the capitol with pitchforks and torches and emergency use authorization medical concoctions without the extra four month cushion before the 2024 general election. Urgency statutes are a joke. The Legislature flaunts its contempt for the law every time it asserts the provision.

Versions of the relevant codes were further amended by technical, usually non-substantive, amendments in 2024 (SB 1525).

Why were the supporters and opponents names not printed on the ballot for Prop 50?

You'll note that, unlike the lists of supporters and opponents on the ballot for statewide measures on November 5, 2024, Prop 50 has nothing. Just in case you think that there were none, section 9051(c)(1)(G) requires, in that case, printing "Supporters: None submitted. Opponents: None submitted." For Prop 50, it's self-evident that the Secretary of State violated the law, section 9051.

For and Against information (not the lists required by section 9051) is printed on page 5 of the state voter information guide. Why didn't the Secretary of State follow the law for the ballot?

Besides the three signers, the argument in favor lists those who support Prop 50, some by name.

Join President Barack Obama, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Alex Padilla, Senator Adam Schiff, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, election experts, independent redistricting commissioners, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, California veterans, teachers, and nurses.

For any supporter names to be printed in an official argument or rebuttal, the authors must provide written acknowledgement that the person has authorized the name to appear.

Section 9051 permits only a list of names of persons or organizations with a maximum length of 150 characters. If we eliminate the unnamed groups in the list we have: "President Barack Obama, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Alex Padilla, Senator Adam Schiff, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP." That's exactly 150 characters. Coincidence? Give us a break. Someone likely decided that those names may not actually be very helpful in passing the measure if they were printed on the ballot. Our criminal Secretary of State was only too happy to oblige. This was not her first rodeo. (See our expansive analysis of how Weber rigged Newsom's 2021 recall election.)

Regarding the Supporters and Opponents lists, we contend that these requirements meet the definition of electioneering (a crime under the Elections Code) as well as constitute an unconstitutional governmental use of public moneys to take sides in an election. The rules for the names permitted to be printed in the lists unabashedly favor the government no matter whether it supports or opposes a measure.

Does the condensed ballot title and summary conform to the law as amended in 2022, 2023, and 2024?

The amendments to sections 303.5 and 9051 were significant, substantive changes to the law with respect to the condensed ballot title and summary. The amendments actually changed defining characteristics of the language printed on the ballot.

Is Prop 50 an Advisory Measure?

Several years ago the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Legislature using what are known as advisory measures. The case was Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Padilla (2016) 62 Cal.4th 486 ("HJTA"). At issue was an advisory measure designated Proposition 49 (2014). The court blocked it from appearing on the ballot because its constitutionality was "uncertain." It kept jurisdiction, however, and reviewed the issue in depth. Of course, HJTA couldn't persuade the court that it was unconstitutional. Consequently, advisory measures by the Legislature are constitutional under the Legislature's "investigative" power.

The same lawyer who lost the HJTA (Prop 49) case, also lost the case in June of 2024 that removed the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from the November 2024 ballot. (See our extensive analysis of that disaster.)

Curiously (or not) Prop 49 was about a federal constitutional amendment. Guess what? Prop 50 is also about a federal constitutional amendment, at least in part. Coincidence? We're including the full text of the Prop 49 advisory question that would have appeared on the ballot, below, for the purpose of comparing it with subdivision (a) of the amendment proposed by Prop 50, also below.

Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only? [Proposition 49 (2014)]

The first subdivision of the proposed Section 4, Article XXI reads.

(a) It is the policy of the State of California to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. The people of the State of California call on the Congress of the United States to pass federal legislation and propose an amendment of the United States Constitution to require the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. [Proposition 50 (2025)]

A fairly obvious question is what does "advisory" mean? In HJTA, the court was considering a question, not an amendment to the constitution. That corresponds to the "investigative power" which highly correlates to asking questions, just like the cops do.

In another sense, advisory could mean that California is "advising" Congress of its policy. That's what subdivision (a) does. However, it's clearly not "investigative" in nature. Corroborating the non-investigative nature of the subdivision is the fact that the Legislature did no investigation. In fact the entire process that the Legislature used to put Prop 50 on the ballot required that it avoid investigation. That's what the gut-and-amend scheme accomplishes. There was no discussion in the Legislature of whether or not California should support an amendment to the federal constitution. The language just appeared, out of thin air, in the language of the amendment.

As we discussed earlier, when state legislatures (all of them) want the Congress to do or not do something, they pass a resolution, which goes through the normal legislative process. That's been the way states have done it for centuries. State legislatures can no longer (since the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment) tell Congress what they want. They must petition Congress, just like the people.

So what does subdivision (a) actually do? It doesn't change any law in California. It doesn't expand or contract any power of state or local government. It's just a statement, much like a resolution. It does nothing.

Just think of all the resolutions that a state legislature might want to pass to let the world, Congress, and the people know where it stands on something. In 175 years, the Legislature has never put such a resolution into the constitution, until now. The thing about statements or resolutions is that they typically need a simple majority of both houses to pass. They don't even need the approval of the governor. Why then would such a statement need a vote of the people as an amendment to the constitution? It doesn't.

So why was it added? The answer to that question is the key to Pandora's box.

It was, self-evidently, added to influence the voters into passing the only operative language in Prop 50 -- subdivision (b), the congressional district maps.

One might even call it an argument in favor of the passage of Prop 50. Guess what? It is. Just read the argument in favor and the rebuttal to the argument against in the state voter information guide that you may have already received in the mail, as required by the Political Reform Act (Proposition 7 (1974)) ("PRA").

Here's the official argument in favor, printed in the state voter information guide, that corresponds to the "does-nothing" subdivision (a).

• COMMITS TO FAIR REDISTRICTING. Prop. 50 reaffirms California's commitment to independent redistricting and calls for a nationwide commitment to fair and impartial maps.

Here's the official argument in favor, printed in the state voter information guide, that corresponds to subdivision (d), the other "does-nothing" provision in Prop 50. Remember, the maps are expressly repealed when new maps are drawn after the decennial census.

• IS TEMPORARY. These maps expire in 2030. Prop. 50 preserves California's award-winning redistricting reforms and reaffirms the California Citizens Redistricting Commission's authority to draw congressional districts after the next census.

"Big deal," you say? As our politicians are often caught saying, "It's a big f--ing deal." Why is that?

Consider this. How is the special election for Prop 50 being paid for? Newsom isn't paying for it out of his own personal funds. The members of the Legislature aren't paying for it out of their own personal funds. Are they? Hell would freeze over before that ever happened, wouldn't it? No, the proponents are using public funds -- your taxes -- to pay for the entire election.

Guess what? Our beloved supreme court has held many times over the past two centuries that when the government (Newsom, the Legislature, the county registrars) use public funds to take sides in an election, they violate the rights (First Amendment ["compelled speech"] and Fourteenth Amendment ["equal protection"]) of everyone under both federal and state constitutions, as well the Penal Code (section 421, to be exact), and as well as subjecting themselves to civil liability for the funds unlawfully expended. So says the supreme court. Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206. Stanson goes into great detail not only on the constitutional violations, but also on the criminal liability of those who use the public treasury for purposes not authorized by law.

The law, Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Elections Code, provides the rules that a statewide measure must conform to on its way to the ballot. One of those rules is that the attorney general writes a ballot title and summary (up to 100 words) that is printed in the state voter information guide. The attorney general must also write a condensed ballot title and summary (up to 75 words) that is printed on the ballot. The condensed ballot title and summary is the only language that the voter sees at the time that the voter marks the ballot.

By adding two "does nothing" provisions to the operative language of Prop 50, the Legislature enabled the hacks at the attorney general's office to place those arguments in the condensed ballot title and summary. Voters may or may not read anything in the state voter information guide. Voters may or may not hear or read any of the arguments from the various campaign committees. Voters may or may not hear or read media coverage surrounding the measure. What every voter will read, however, is the condensed ballot title and summary that appears on the ballot at the very time that they cast their vote. Except of course, for the dead ones, the pets, the fake ones, and the voters whose ballots are cast by someone else.

Everything in the state voter information guide is, usually, scrupulously in compliance with the provisions of the PRA that govern its contents. That's where arguments, analyses, and other official information are printed. Nothing in the state voter information guide would likely be considered "taking sides in an election," even though public moneys are used in creating, printing, and circulating it. It contains all the official information. That's why it's called the state voter information guide. In fact, the PRA expressly gives the Secretary of State a great amount of latitude to provide additional relevant information in addition to that expressly required by the PRA.

The ballot, however, is not for information. It's for casting a vote. Appellate courts have repeatedly held, in line with Stanson, that the ballot must be neutral. See Huntington Beach v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1417; McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169.

We also note that our dearly beloved supreme court has already slapped down the Legislature for attempting to write the condensed ballot title and summary for its own ballot measures. See [CASE]. So the Legislature has to rely on the attorney general's office to write what it hopes will be a favorable condensed ballot title and summary to be printed on the ballot.

From a case law stand point, did the court, when it found advisory questions allowable in HJTA, sanction putting advisory messages in the constitution? A court can only decide the case before it. That question has never been addressed.

From a case law stand point, has any court ever found that the Legislature has the power to manipulate the language of the condensed ballot title and summary by adding "does-nothing" language to a measure? Until now that question has never been asked because there have never been facts to support asking the question.

This is the condensed, 70-word, ballot title and summary that is printed on the ballots. The two highlighted sentences are directly attributable to the two "does nothing" provisions of the proposed Section 4.

AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Requires temporary use of new congressional district maps through 2030. Directs independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to resume enacting congressional district maps in 2031. Establishes policy supporting nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs to counties of up to a few million dollars statewide to update election materials to reflect new congressional district maps.

But there's an even bigger problem with the condensed ballot title and summary, even before we get to compliance with the amendments of section 303.5 and section 9051. The 13-word title is an argument in favor of passing the measure. The argument is "IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING." What's an argument ? Look it up! It's a reason. In this case it's the raison d'etre for putting Prop 50 on the ballot. It gives every voter who casts a ballot the ultimate argument right in the first 13 words the voter reads in all upper case, designating importance.

Now let's look at the relevant portions of section 303.5 as amended by AB-421 in 2023.

(a) "Ballot title" is the name of a statewide initiative measure or measure proposed by the Legislature ...

(b) (1) "Ballot title and summary" means, for a statewide initiative measure or measure proposed by the Legislature, the summary of the chief purpose and points including the fiscal impact summary of any measure that appears in the state voter information guide. ...

...

Remember, this is new law. To our knowledge, based on the lack of an appellate decision, no one has yet to challenge a statewide condensed ballot title and summary under this statute. Note also that this is an express definition that applies to the entire Elections Code.

What's the ballot title of the measure? It's name. That's the language in all upper case except for the three (sometimes two) words that describe the nature of the measure.

In ACA-8, the Legislature named it the "Election Rigging Response Act." That's clearly not neutral. "Election rigging" is a legal conclusion (not a fact), drawn by the Legislature. It also connotes that election rigging is a bad or illegal act. It's also speculative, not factual, in that it addresses something that might or might not happen in the future. The hacks knew they couldn't get away with that if it were challenged in court. Additionally, they couldn't be perceived as fully on board with the governor and the Legislature. That would demonstrate bias.

So the hacks came up with what you can read on your ballot and above. Even if we eliminate the argument clause, "AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS" does not read like a name because it starts with a verb. This is written in the way that condensed ballot titles and summaries have been written for decades, even in 2024 after the new definiton was in effect. It's written as if the hacks hadn't even read the law as it had been amended.

If we eliminate the verb, we have something that more or less could be considered a name -- "TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS." But there's a real problem with the adjective "TEMPORARY." All congressional district maps are temporary. They are never permanent in the normal sense of the word. Like all enactments (laws), they are permanent until they are changed. That's much like the artifice used in local tax measure ballot questions where the proponents purport to describe the duration of a tax as "until ended by voters" or "while bonds are outstanding." So the maps are neither temporary nor permanent. We would argue to remove the word "TEMPORARY" from the name, because it's deceptive in the context used. What are we left with? "CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS." It would be hard to argue that, as a ballot title, that it is not, self-evidently, neutral. It's completely factual. The measure changes the current maps to new maps.

Now let's examine the summary part of the condensed ballot title and summary. What does the definition (section 303.5(b)(1)) require? Simply, "the summary of the chief purpose and points." We're not taking anything out of context. That is the entirety of the definition of the summary -- "the chief purpose and points." Many other states use that kind of language ("chief purpose") in statutes that provide rules for statewide measures. Florida, for example, uses that exact phrase.

Note carefully that the phrase "chief purpose" is singular. In the Elections Code, there are some statutes that use the phrase "chief purposes," but those statutes do not apply to this situation. It can be presumed (courts do that all the time) that the Legislature understood the difference between singular and plural.

You tell us. From what you've read and what the hacks have written for the condensed ballot title and summary, what is the chief purpose of the measure? If your answer is anything other than "to change the congressional district maps," you may need a remedial reading comprehension course. Of course, you could just ask your friendly AI chat bot and see what it spits out.

Except for the use of the word "temporary" (as discussed above), we can wholly agree with the hacks on the first sentence of the summary -- "Requires ~~temporary~~ use of new congressional district maps through 2030." That's exactly what the measure does. That's, again, self-evidently, its chief purpose.

The next two sentences, as highlighted above describe the "does nothing" subdivisions. Since the "does nothing" subdivisions, do nothing and only the chief purpose is permitted, we have to examine the word "points" from the definition.

Merriman-Webster lists a total of 19 definitions for the word. The first one, above, is the only one that makes sense in the context of the section 303.5.

What are the details of the "new congressional district maps?" Obviously, the maps themselves and the corresponding verbal descriptions of the boundaries are the details. Those details all contained in AB-604. There are 52 of those kinds of details. That's too many to summarize. Since the language of AB-604 is not printed out in the state voter information, that fact could have been a point. It's a detail about the amendment. Subdivision (c) is also law. Those are details about the procedure for challenges to the amendment. Those facts might also be considered points. The hacks, in their discretion, didn't consider those important points, so they were omitted. That's not a problem.

As already discussed, the "does nothing" subdivisions are not law. They are not details connected with the "chief purpose" of the measure. The only purpose they serve is to provide cover to the hacks to manipulate the language of the summary with arguments that favor passage of the measure. The hacks could have, as the attorney general's office has done in the past, petitioned the courts to determine if the "does nothing" provisions are even within the power of the Legislature to add to the constitution. That, however, would have likely delayed things and made it impossible to hold an election on November 4th, which was the overriding goal of the governor and the Legislature.

Under our analysis, here's what we're left with for the condensed title and summary. It's 41 words long.

CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Requires use of new congressional district maps through 2030. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs to counties of up to a few million dollars statewide to update election materials to reflect new congressional district maps.

What about the Single Topic Rule?

One of the filed legal proceedings actually addressed this. Cheers.

Issue of First Impression

The specific issue raised by Prop 50 is one of first impression. That means no court, either in California or anywhere else in the country, has ever addressed it.

Here's our take on the issue that a court might be asked to decide on. We'll break it into two parts. Part one is '

How a court would rule on an issue of first impression is engaging in speculation. However, one can analyze how a court might rule on such an issue based on cases (precedent) that have dealt with similar or related issues in the past.

Conclusion

Where are all the lawyers, especially the ones who claim to be election law experts? Do competent lawyers even exist any more?

# # #

Search This Blog

Proposition 50 (2025) Mania