When Voters Don’t Matter - 8/11/25

t can be argued that allowing politicians to create their own districts is like letting teenagers set their own curfews. Even if everyone begins the evening with the noblest of goals, it’s inevitable that as the hour gets late, personal self-interest will always take precedence over high-minded good intentions.

This was the premise that led California voters to reject the inherent conflict of interest that allows elected officials of both parties to collude in drawing legislative and congressional boundaries that protect their incumbents from the annoyance of competitive re-election campaigns. So back in 2008 and 2010, they passed a pair of ballot initiatives that took this power away from the state legislature and granted it to a bipartisan citizens commission. 

As Donald Trump fans the flames of gerrymandering to increase Republican congressional majorities in deep-red states like Texas and Florida, California is leading a national Democratic counter-offensive to manipulate the district lines in the states that they control. The result will dramatically reduce the minority party’s representation in many states, further marginalizing those voters who have the audacity to hold political beliefs different from those of the governing majority. If you are one of the 42 percent of Texas voters who supported Kamala Harris or one of the 38 percent of Californians who voted for Donald Trump, your voice may soon matter even less than it does today.

Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, and other California Democrats emphasize that they are reluctant partisan warriors (“defenders of democracy,” using Pelosi’s language), that they will drop their gerrymandering efforts if Texas does the same, and that their own redrawn districts would exist only through 2030, when the commission would regain its authority. Newsom and Pelosi and their allies are portraying this as a “stop-Trump” vote, which should be an easy victory in a state that despises the president by sizable margins. 

But those who led the original fight for those admirable reforms, most notably former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and mega-donor/activist Charles Munger, have vowed to fight Newsom’s initiative. Schwarzenegger and Munger are among the vanishing breed of centrist Republicans who still survive in the Trump era, but their motivations have nothing to do with helping the president’s party protect its congressional majority. They simply think now—as they did then—that it is good for democracy for voters to choose their candidates rather than allowing candidates to select their voters.

For those who have come of political age in recent years, this concept may seem unfamiliar. It is called “acting on principle.” This is what happens when upstanding individuals hold themselves to certain ethical and moral standards regardless of the potential for immediate benefit or detriment. In addition to the anthropological value that comes from reminding us that such standards exist outside of museums and history books, Schwarzenegger and Munger and their fellow reformers may create a competitive election for a litmus test initiative in a state that overwhelmingly opposes Trump.

An Emerson College statewide poll shows that one-third of California voters support the effort, a quarter oppose it, and 42% are undecided. Political experts agree that ballot measures that begin with less than 50% support face an uphill fight, so even the nominal lead that the initiative now holds may be illusory. Newsom and congressional Democrats will be forced to raise unprecedented amounts of money to have a chance at passage, and it’s likely that equally deep-pocketed Republicans will spend just as heavily to defeat it. By the time the dust settles in November, this could be California’s first half-billion-dollar campaign.

The Democrats’ hypocrisy is most notable after their determined opposition to the 2008 redistricting measure despite the support of prominent party leaders such as former Governor Gray Davis, former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, and former US Representative Leon Panetta. (Newsom now claims to have also supported the initiative, but there is no record of the ambitious and vocal then-mayor of San Francisco taking a public stand.)

California Republicans who have aligned themselves with Trump deserve no credit either. They have fiercely criticized the existing districts in the past, and their opposition to Newsom’s proposal is just as opportunistic, just as situational and just as craven as the Democrats’ support. Neither side is defending democracy in anything but the most illusory, self-indulgent, and creatively elastic way.

For those whose passion regarding Trump is greater than their belief in democracy, this will be an easy vote to cast. For the rest of us, it is more difficult.