Californians, always reluctant to vote ‘yes,’ will recoil at the governor’s self-serving partisanship.
Boosted by partisan loathing of President Trump and assisted by media toadies, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s clownish social-media posts and foul-mouthed news conferences appear to be paying off: Polls looking ahead to a hypothetical 2028 presidential race find Mr. Newsom leading the Democratic field. But the governor’s path to the White House rests heavily on the success of a special election he has orchestrated for this fall. On Nov. 4, voters will determine whether to pass a constitutional amendment redrawing California’s congressional districts to evade the state’s independent redistricting commission.
The ballot measure, Proposition 50, would gerrymander district lines to a ridiculous degree and could leave Republicans with as few as four of 52 seats in the delegation. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, a Republican, estimates the cost of holding a special election at around $250 million. This means that California taxpayers are paying a quarter of a billion dollars to fuel Gavin Newsom’s Oval Office bid and underwrite the state Democratic Party’s obsession for virtual autocratic rule.
The proposition, however, is likely to fail. Mr. Newsom has poked a stick into a hornet’s nest. Proposition 50 threatens to smother the California GOP. A previously moribund California Republican Party is more motivated than ever to rally its grass roots, raise money, turn out voters and defend its relevance in the political and social order.
Further, ballot measures are notoriously difficult to pass. If voters have any skepticism or uncertainty about a policy, they tend to choose the status quo rather than voting for something new or questionable. I know this from experience, having overseen two losing California school-choice campaigns that required “yes” votes. Proposition 174’s voucher campaign in 1993 lagged behind in mid-September polls by a modest 45% to 39% margin but then lost by 70% to 30%.
Proposition 50’s support is spindly, with 46% favoring it and 36% opposed—a weak starting point when an opposition campaign has only modestly begun unleashing negative media. Stay tuned for the heavy artillery.
To rally support for the measure, Proposition 50’s advocates are relying on attacks against President Trump. As opposition to the campaign gears up, it will become as much about the governor as the president. Mr. Newsom will become the face of Californians’ distrust of the state government—the failure to deliver on taxes, homelessness, schools, crime, housing, borders, budgets and a high-speed train.
Proposition 50’s advocates frame the measure as a “temporary” solution, but voters know better. Mr. Newsom’s insistence that the redrawn lines are temporary is about as believable as the government’s assurance of shorter wait times at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The “No on 50” campaign would be wise to argue that a quarter-billion dollars spent on Mr. Newsom’s political games would be better spent on firefighters, police officers, schoolteachers and road repairs.
Proposition 50 has also unnecessarily stirred up unwanted adversaries. As California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger championed the independent commission that drew district lines. Mr. Schwarzenegger sees the amendment as a threat to his reforms, and he has returned to the political arena as a highly credible nonpartisan face to counter Mr. Newsom. Philanthropist Charlie Munger Jr. has pledged more than $10 million to prevent the destruction of reforms his father supported. Former U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has also re-emerged in opposition to the measure, seeking to raise $100 million and rally the Republican base with his political skills and fundraising prowess.
Although Common Cause and the League of Women Voters haven’t taken a position on the measure, these “good government” organizations rendered no favors to the governor by also using language that Proposition 50 opponents are sure to use in campaign ads: “Common Cause will not endorse partisan gerrymandering,” the group said in a public statement. The League of Women Voters issued stronger language: “Governor Newsom is ‘dead wrong’ on the League of Women Voters. We are aligned with voters. Period. . . . Gerrymandering is a threat to democracy, regardless of who does it.”
Mr. Newsom’s absurdly reactive behavior could turn voters against him. His response to Texas’ redistricting was overly dramatic and disproportionate. It wasn’t a defense of democracy but a shameless personal abuse of government to gild his credentials for his presidential ambitions. Voters may hold him accountable for this.
At the end of the day, will Californians accept redrawn districts under Proposition 50 that don’t accurately represent the state’s political makeup? The share of California voters registered as Democrats is 45%, but Mr. Newsom’s gerrymander would give them as much as 92% of the congressional delegation. It’s the perfect bargain—they peel only a small portion of the potatoes but enjoy nearly all the french fries. Come to think of it, that probably defines the way they believe government works.
