SACRAMENTO, CA – Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig joined 29 other elected district attorneys across California this week in publicly opposing Proposition 50, a statewide ballot measure they argue would dismantle the state’s independent redistricting system and allow partisan gerrymandering to return to California.
In a joint letter released October 9, the prosecutors wrote that Proposition 50 “seeks to dismantle the voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission and reinstate partisan gerrymandering—a flawed process rejected by Californians through Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010).” They warned that the initiative “undermines democracy by prioritizing politicians’ power instead of preserving voter-approved reforms that improve community representation.”
The district attorneys emphasized that the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by voters, has “fairly redrawn electoral districts after the last two censuses.” Proposition 50, they wrote, would instead “allow the State Legislature to secretly craft new congressional maps before the next census—dividing communities and silencing voters.”
The letter criticized the measure’s cost, stating that “Proposition 50’s special election carries a staggering $300-million price tag—funds that could support voter-approved Proposition 36’s drug treatment programs, which received nearly 70% support from Californians to address crime and addiction.” The prosecutors noted that while the Legislature claimed it lacked sufficient funds for those programs, it “readily allocated millions for this unnecessary election, highlighting misplaced priorities.”
The DAs said partisan gerrymandering is “fundamentally wrong, regardless of who perpetrates it or where it occurs.” They described Proposition 50 as a “fight fire with fire” approach that “dismantles a twice voter-approved bipartisan redistricting commission.” The letter also condemned what it called a broader erosion of integrity in political discourse, writing that “in an era marked by eroding ethics and integrity—where political assassination is excused and violent rhetoric against opponents and their families is dismissed as a mere ‘mistake’—we must firmly say no.”
The prosecutors concluded by urging Californians to reject the measure. “Proposition 50 threatens fair representation and wastes resources on an effort to undo voter-approved reforms and change California’s congressional delegation solely to benefit one political party rather than uphold the will of the people,” the letter stated. “As district attorneys dedicated to institutional integrity, we urge Californians to reject Proposition 50 and protect our democratic process.”
Among the signatories were district attorneys from Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Yolo counties.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The 30 district attorneys who signed the letter are:
Robert Priscaro, Alpine County
Todd Riebe, Amador County
Michael L. Ramsey, Butte County
Matthew R. Beauchamp, Colusa County
Vern Pierson, El Dorado County
Lisa Smittcamp, Fresno County
Dwayne R. Stewart, Glenn County
Cynthia Zimmer, Kern County
Sarah Hacker, Kings County
Melyssah Rios, Lassen County
Nathan Hochman, Los Angeles County
Sally Moreno, Madera County
Nina Salarno, Modoc County
Jeannine Pacioni, Monterey County
Allison Haley, Napa County
Morgan Gire, Placer County
Michael A. Hestrin, Riverside County
Joel Buckingham, San Benito County
Jason Anderson, San Bernardino County
Summer Stephan, San Diego County
Dan Dow, San Luis Obispo County
Stephanie Bridgett, Shasta County
Sandy Groven, Sierra County
Kirk Andrus, Siskiyou County
Krishna Abrams, Solano County
Jennifer Dupre, Sutter County
Matt Rogers, Tehama County
Tim Ward, Tulare County
Jeff Reisig, Yolo County
Clint Curry, Yuba County
Funny, I was filling out my ballot right now and voting “NO” on Prop 50 and what do you know, this article appeared.
Reisig’s points are absolutely valid. If the tables were turned and California was redistricting democrat districts to turn them red you know the Vanguard would be crying like a baby.
I think this link says it all: https://davisvanguard.org/tag/proposition-50/
What, are you saying two wrongs make a right?
Because Texas is disenfranchising voters it’s okay for California to do it too?
Nope. I’m saying we are not covering Prop 50 because it’s a partisan issue. We covered this because we cover DA’s in California and Reisig, and this was a straight news story, no commentary.
You don’t cover partisan issues?
Since when?
There are tons of partisan issues covered on the Vanguard.
This is not an issue we are covering.
Oh, so the tune changes.
The DAs are either naive or disingenuous. Unfortunately if the GOP controls both houses in 2026 there’s a strong possibility that our democracy fades away as it has in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela and even Russia. And without a global democratic counterweight many other nations will also slide away into authoritarianism. The only democracy left will be for conservative white Christian men.
Prop 50 is about fighting fire with fire. No one wants to get into all out fight, but at that moment the niceties of rules slip away.
The DA’s are wrong. Vote yes on 50.
The CA DA’s are wrong for not wanting the dismantling of the “voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission and reinstate partisan gerrymandering—a flawed process rejected by Californians through Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010).” They warned that the initiative “undermines democracy by prioritizing politicians’ power instead of preserving voter-approved reforms that improve community representation?”
That’s a stupid position.
So Ron, if you are okay with CA’s gerrymandering are you also okay with the Texas gerrymandering?
This is a game theoretic dilemma.
Keith’s comment treats gerrymandering as if it’s a moral rather than strategic issue, missing the reciprocal, iterative logic at work.
Texas made the first move – aggressive partisan maps to lock in long-term advantage. California is proposing to reciprocate.
So when Keith frames it as “Are you okay with California’s gerrymandering?”, he’s skipping the prior move that made the response rational.
It’s not hypocrisy it’s escalation within a non-cooperative game where both sides act rationally but collectively produce a worse democratic outcome — a textbook prisoner’s dilemma.
But it’s worse than that. This is an iterated game where every round influences the next.
Once California retaliates, it doesn’t restore fairness — it normalizes the behavior and pushes the equilibrium toward permanent escalation.
“Once California retaliates, it doesn’t restore fairness — it normalizes the behavior and pushes the equilibrium toward permanent escalation.”
The CA redistricting expires in 2031 and the process returns to an independent commission. The Texas redistricting doesn’t.
Yeah, but it’s kind of like the nuclear option. Once the genie is out of the bottle. It’s hard to put it back in.
You know that if gerrymandering goes nuclear that the GOP has the most to gain. The democrats have pretty much already done all the gerrymandering that can help them. And for you to say that Texas took the first shot (so to speak) you’re skipping years and years of the democrats doing that very thing.
Keith, no gerrymandering is good for the voters no matter what State the gerrymander takes place in. However, it is highly prevalent across the 50 states wherever the districting is done by the State’s elected officials. It would be ideal if every State used an independent Commission, but unfortunately they don’t, so Texas has weaponized the districting process and thereby escalated the severe partisanship of our Nation even further. California can either be idealistic (and naive) and watch Texas game the system, or they can respond and keep the system in balance. Which would you choose imbalance or balance?
While I don’t disagree with you Matt, do two wrongs make a right?
Too wrongs don’t make it right but in this case one wrong can neutralize another wrong.
I think the CA DA’s are right on target.
Right now Trump has almost complete control of the government. He has majorities in both houses of Congress and a compliant supreme court. Right now I want a check on his Presidency. The most important question being decided in this election is do you want Trump to have checked or unchecked power? If you answer checked power then vote yes on Prop 50.
I’m voting no. I remember why we voted in the commission. It’s not perfect by a long shot, but better than it was. I’m also non-partisan so I have no reason to vote strategically. I vote on principal, and partisan politics suck.
Bad move.
Alan
This also may be the last time that you have any kind of meaningful vote in your lifetime.
Oh please, stop with the hyperbolic rhetoric.
I was careful to be limited and realistic so I kept the issue to what is honestly at stake. Whether there will be complete Republican control of all three branches or if there will be a check on the Republicans.