MENDOCINO CO., 11/4/25 – Mendocino County voters appear poised to approve the statewide Proposition 50 redistricting measure, according to early results.
As of Tuesday night, the “Yes on 50” votes have 65% of the county vote and 64.6% statewide.
Proposition 50 will suspend the congressional district maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission until 2030 and replace them with new maps designed to give Democrats an advantage. The measure follows similar moves in Texas, where lawmakers recently redrew districts to benefit Republicans.
Mendocino County is proposed to be split between two congressional districts — the 2nd District of U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, which includes the coast, and the 1st District of U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, which covers inland areas.
Under new maps, Huffman’s district could expand south or inland to include more Democratic-leaning areas, while LaMalfa’s could lose some conservative northern territory. Those changes would make both districts more favorable to Democrats and could affect how local priorities, from forest management to rural infrastructure, are represented in Congress.
While Huffman had not responded as of Tuesday night, LaMalfa expressed disappointment on Facebook.
“Our constitution lost out to a pile of money and shameful deception, in one of the most blatant power grabs I’ve ever seen,” he said before calling the proposition “Newsom’s scheme” and expressing hope that the initiative would be successfully challenged in court.
One of LaMalfa’s challengers, Audrey Denney, a Democrat and nonprofit consultant from Chico, celebrated the passing of Proposition 50, saying in a statement that it sends a “strong message” to President Donald Trump and LaMalfa. Denney said she plans to campaign across the newly redesigned district, including inland Mendocino County.
Mendocino County’s state representatives are also responding to the vote.
State Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, echoed Denney’s sentiment of the passing of Proposition 50 being a “powerful message” to the White House.
“Passing Prop 50 today spells trouble ahead for Donald Trump,” McGuire said on social media, “A tidal wave of change is coming to rescue this great country, and it’s starting right here in California.”
State Assemblymember Chris Rogers, D-Santa Rosa, thanked voters in a Facebook post. “History will show that Californians went to extraordinary lengths to fight back against a fascist President and to defend our democracy,” he said.
Passing Prop 50 is a step in the direction of forming a Majoritarian Democracy with more direct voting representation. Our country was designed to be a model of a Republic “if you can keep it…” (Benjamin Franklin, September 17, 1787).
The Republic model is what has been in place, and what modern Republicans want in place. But this is not about partisanship only. This model banks on the elite, wealthy, and legacy connected to running our country through offices.
However, by states redistricting (Gerrymanding holds a negative stigma) because it has been done to take power away from poorer communities of color in the mask of political advocacy and movements towards citizenship and funding based on value and representation by those overseeing districts, “unlike many recent maps drawn in Republican-led states, the proposed Prop 50 map does not significantly disrupt racial representation or compromise the geographical compactness of California’s districts. This suggests that while it mirrors the strategic logic of partisan gerrymandering, it does so with fewer distortions to representational fairness within the state”, (Sheely, 2025). In short, whomever resides as an official over a district, decides (based on actual voter input they adhere to), what resources, rights, policies, and American access to fairness is provided in those districts, especially those with poor voter turnout, or near poverty- line living.
Yes, Prop 50 does move the job of drawing district lines away from the independent commission made up of Dems, Repubs, and Indy’s (Hasen, 2025), which us California voters can also decide to change back if it goes back up for election. Yes, it allows those who can afford to relocate to vote, but it still does not allow them to run for office in a district other than their own residency. It also provides a large net of voters by expanding the number of votes and reps per seat in the National/Congressional arenas, to “ensure fairer national outcomes” (Sheely, 2025).
This can shrink the disproportionality of the electoral college and the larger states holding sway in presidential elections, and give more voting power to smaller states, and shift the predominance of “red” or “blue” states to “purple” or even “green” states, – in time.
Plainly put, it shifts the very political power of neighborhoods, and it puts the power of the vote into the people’s voices directly towards a majoritarian democracy (one person, one vote) to cast their reps (and more of them) per state, and could and should lead to more direct voting participation and representation past the two-party system on policies that directly affect us. Yes, Republicans in power in California will lose seats, and thus power, and Democrats will lose competition and opposition and accountability (Sheely, 2025), but it is safe to say, that the GOP is already losing the competition and accountability in the least in blue states, and at most presently, within our Nation.
Those who say, “two wrongs don’t make it a right” are saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t attempt to fix it”, but they are also not acknowledging anything is broken! There is a strong enough reason to have more direct districts reflect the voting of citizens whose goals and policies affect our lives we live under, especially if it opens up the possibility of (slowly) turning the tables to implore another legislative change to challenge and change the Constitution that allows for more multiparty candidates to run for offices they can actually win in more districts state and nation-wide.
All states could potentially hold larger electoral college votes per district as they increase, but this also presents the challenge of those districts being redrawn to be included in elections and policy votes that have had lower turn out to effect those new districts they are being included in.
“Will Congress, which has the power to impose standards for fair congressional districts around the country under its powers in Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution, try to impose a more national solution? It is too early to say, but I am confident that Proposition 50 will not be the last word on these questions and may provoke or inspire additional responses around the country”, (Hasen, 2025).
We should expect an aggressive rebuttal of Gerrymandering by Republicans nation and statewide in many states and look out for weakening of the Voting Rights act under the current Supreme Court, and expect challenges that Prop 50 violates the Voting Rights Act, because it is in essence literally seeking to change the interpretation of the Constitution to allow for the States to redistrict voting lines for Congress. The late and great Ruth Ginsberg is rolling over in her grave, but I believe would vote “yes” on Prop 50.
Sources:
https://law.ucla.edu/news/how-big-deal-californias-proposition-50
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/news/recent-news/proposition-50-and-californias-redistricting-debate-five-questions-with-galen-sheely