[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6590239,"mediaKeyId","5603481-d1458a4386818ee5b85ba5432dd62036","parentId",5603481,"title","Informational hearing previews AB 604 maps proposed for a one-time voter referendum if ACA 8 passes","audioSeconds",549,"startMs",17530000,"endMs",18079000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5603481-d1458a4386818ee5b85ba5432dd62036&start=17530&end=18079","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5603481-d1458a4386818ee5b85ba5432dd62036/thumbnail_17530000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6590239/California/Informational-hearing-previews-AB-604-maps-proposed-for-a-one-time-voter-referendum-if-ACA-8-passes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6590239-596a415e1973657744dbdc94cafe04c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770646628&Signature=QeMEZ3LjTgxH4-sDBPILrr4spZZAdBLMqTJb~V-VrZ~~rHPkF7K2qT4mMGU0HbwOqcQsKf7MiY~Wp0CKO5MwIrb-~rfOCIZdiO2tHIjFPFlYIgwp2tokl23GAnn4FOm~hbTVZD~1kZ9utjqTrLiYKb8~y2HwAErgTxDlxZg2HiCQsj4SDKzjWNG6vhne7tdJsq2H8qbyUCqI1xnkzEIDYudqDIJCBPWSjor7YAQ9HPHOVN5YiGfaFaAulZIUS2EUPd3MvxkWy9ZhiVOVub74vsAlL1wcfyX4aeKiwk7jepmdXHepcq6q8E3jyYX24yuhRbl4WA1QKxAsSjDffxssIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Assembly","date","2025-08-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Assembly Elections Committee held an informational hearing on Aug. 19 to preview Assembly Bill 604, a package of proposed congressional maps the Legislature would offer to voters if ACA 8 (the proposed constitutional amendment) is approved. AB 604 does not itself change law in the committee's informational form, but authors presented the maps and explained the rationale for the proposed lines.

Majority Leader (author) presented the maps and described them as a narrow response to partisan mid‑decade redistricting in other states. \"If California voters approve this plan, the temporary maps only happen if DC Republicans and the Republican led states push through mid decade partisan maps first,\" the author said. Supporters emphasized that the maps are intended to respect communities of interest and that, by some metrics cited in testimony, they split fewer cities and kept more residents in their existing districts than certain publicly circulated alternative plans.

Several former Citizens Redistricting Commission members and good‑government witnesses urged caution. Former CRC chair Cynthia Dye said the CRC considered over 35,000 public comments in developing its maps and urged the Legislature not to supplant the independent process. Former commissioners emphasized the transparency and community input processes that characterized the CRC’s work and suggested that, if a mid‑cycle response were necessary, the CRC should be funded to redraw maps under full public process.

Authors and technical witnesses said AB 604 was developed to follow traditional redistricting criteria, to maintain compactness, and to reduce splits in some cities; they noted some late adjustments were made to the plan. One technical witness said the maps would be posted in the voter pamphlet and made available to the public for the Nov. 4 special election should ACA 8 and the rest of the package move forward.

Why it matters: AB 604 shows the specific lines that would be presented to voters under the ACA 8 / SB 280 package. The maps and the process for describing them in the voter pamphlet will be central to public debate if the constitutional amendment moves to the ballot.

What’s next: AB 604 was presented as informational only at this hearing; authors said the maps would be part of the voter information materials if the package advances. Committee members and stakeholders will continue to review the line‑drawing details and public reaction.

Ending — Authors said the maps are based on the CRC'drawn baseline and adjusted to respond to partisan mid‑decade changes elsewhere; opponents said any mid‑cycle mapmaking should remain subject to the independent and transparent CRC process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Elections Committee (1)","oneSentenceSummary","At an informational hearing, authors and supporters described AB 604, a set of proposed congressional maps that would be used if voters approve ACA 8. Authors said maps preserve much of the independent commission'drawn districts, while opponents and former commission members warned against supplanting the independent process.","taxTitle","California State Assembly, House, Legislative, California","taxId",17099,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6590243,"Committee approves SB 280 to fund Nov. 4 special election for ACA 8; bill advances to Appropriations",3112,14310000,17422000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5603481-d1458a4386818ee5b85ba5432dd62036&start=14310&end=17422","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5603481-d1458a4386818ee5b85ba5432dd62036/thumbnail_14310000.jpg","/articles/6590243/California/Committee-approves-SB-280-to-fund-Nov-4-special-election-for-ACA-8-bill-advances-to-Appropriations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6590243-b48450bf6c6be1b690384498de53e379/orig.mp4?Expires=1770646628&Signature=bgtjI1HNBzVtiCobMPPdcEtFsIGvV45DQf84mKgCb6m9~NYu72ggx~7LuwfhG0TmLjMDYjZABdqSMIodSFaemZrBTLspxvOjn-wbSfWweoUN5RO0DDqjSOR0j9IKYvFlRZSba-mFBEAJ6zVNPQ4ztFpsp-LmDNm28Vj46JNHaIuKgeWDHiqPk2UJZu6NPrtcziEnPU9p0i5qmV0QNgGiSAImm3g-clDAUal8Lafysj1iMX3ya~1D9~-yhEMusFVCisr-0RJdS-UMqeZjRfUUerQUdAkjrbb525tKQER4BiuqeDQTJ4opEiwNdQvmlXH9uoQF8KagOARSWGxbXZ2NYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Elections Committee approved Senate Bill 280 on Aug. 19 and re‑referred it for fiscal consideration. SB 280 would appropriate funds and revise election statutes to permit a Nov. 4, 2025 statewide special election so California voters can decide ACA 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow temporary congressional map changes if other states undertake partisan mid‑decade redistricting.

Author Senator Cervantes opened the presentation by linking SB 280 to the voter choice created by ACA 8 and describing the bill’s purpose: to provide funding for the Secretary of State and county registrars and to make necessary statutory changes so the June 2026 statewide primary can be held on time while the special election proceeds. “SB 280 also appropriates the funding necessary for the secretary of state and for our county registrars to administer the special election,” Cervantes said.

County elections officials and the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO) provided technical commentary. Jesse Salinas, Yolo County Registrar and president of CACEO, told the committee that county officials had begun preliminary planning and vendor outreach when word of the bills circulated and that the timeline would be challenging but feasible if counties receive adequate, up‑front reimbursement. The committee heard repeated questions about whether the bill’s funding language would legally ensure counties are made whole before they must spend local resources.

Several members pressed authors and witnesses on costs and timing. Committee members and witnesses cited a rough ballpark figure for a statewide special election in the low hundreds of millions of dollars; witness and member remarks repeatedly referenced the previous 2021 recall as a point of cost comparison. Senators and assembly authors said the Department of Finance would calculate final costs and that the bill includes intent language and appropriations steps to reimburse counties for actual and reasonable expenses.

Labor unions, public‑sector unions and health‑care unions testified in strong support, saying the package is a necessary “firewall” against partisan mid‑decade maps in other states and urged the Legislature to fund the election so California voters could decide. Opposition witnesses — including union members and many public commenters — continued to urge rejection of the legislative package as unnecessary or retaliatory, and raised concerns about process and the compressed timeline.

Roll call on SB 280 recorded ayes from Chair Pellerin, Assemblymembers Bennett, Berman, Salace and Stephanie; no votes from Macedo and Tonguepa. The committee approved the bill 5‑2 and re‑referred it to the Appropriations Committee for funding and fiscal detail.

Why it matters: SB 280 is the statutory and fiscal counterpart to ACA 8. If ACA 8 continues through the legislative process and voters approve it, SB 280 is intended to provide the legal and budgetary framework for holding the special election and reimbursing counties for administration costs.

What’s next: With committee approval, SB 280 now goes to Appropriations for fiscal review and to determine the funding mechanism and appropriation language required to reimburse counties and pay for statewide election administration.

Ending — Committee members said they wanted to ensure counties would have the resources they need to run an expedited statewide election; authors and witnesses said they would work with the Department of Finance and county officials to finalize cost estimates and reimbursement details.","The Assembly Elections Committee voted to refer SB 280, which would appropriate funding and make statutory changes for a Nov. 4, 2025 special election tied to ACA 8, to the Appropriations Committee; members debated county reimbursement, timelines and election logistics.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6590249,"Assembly committee approves ACA 8 to let California voters decide on one-time mid-decade congressional maps",7577,3245000,10822000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5603481-d1458a4386818ee5b85ba5432dd62036&start=3245&end=10822","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5603481-d1458a4386818ee5b85ba5432dd62036/thumbnail_3245000.jpg","/articles/6590249/California/Assembly-committee-approves-ACA-8-to-let-California-voters-decide-on-one-time-mid-decade-congressional-maps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6590249-33916788b096d77c8b3b1f055dd627b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770646628&Signature=F0Enbycx4eX-6pWlcVsnjTDY1ejVprdKbmdef-38vwB2tTxbFcpeId5Zs-5UsedUvpJ9TAm981emwXwUCJfQH5SQARj0-22EqJzLoPzPO0tgTv3Wt7UuHnMWW-o87~YsgVzyo0XTJcJovLhqY1aZvunRlITG04PakT-fkn~zijwjcBrN7LWvmOwbasmzNwJhM5Cd0bRgY0sprahoP1RqV27VwXbllQ9AOHveIMVL80TmCF7Mq1-fPER5In7pBbx7XxHT0SETkc-mfWfdGlgam99SJeOT3sBTUfShiP7arvJP2TbESuRDJ4ltXfJBbTsaci3vkqLsA8w7Int8SGP9Lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Elections Committee voted 5-2 on Aug. 19 to advance Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow California voters to approve temporary congressional district boundaries via a special election on Nov. 4, 2025 if another state enacts a partisan mid‑decade redistricting first.

The committee considered hours of testimony from the bill’s presenter, Assemblymember Bennett Berman, union leaders and former members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC), as well as dozens of members of the public both in support and in opposition. Chair Pellerin framed the legislation as a defensive response: “We aren’t asking Californians to rubber stamp maps drawn behind closed doors,” she said, adding that the package is designed to give voters the final say.

“Known as the Election Rigging Response Act, ACA 8 would allow for the temporary use of voter‑approved congressional district boundaries contained in AB 604,” Assemblymember Berman said while presenting the measure on behalf of Speaker Rivas and other leaders. Berman and supporters said the proposal is a narrow, one‑time tool that would only take effect if another state — they repeatedly cited Texas — redraws its maps in a partisan way before the 2030 census. “First and foremost, California voters will have the final say,” Berman said.

Supporters told the committee they view the measure as a defensive step against what they described as a nationwide push by Republicans in some states to redraw congressional lines mid‑decade. Witnesses who testified in support included Danny Curtin of the California Conference of Carpenters and Annie Chow of the California Teachers Association, who said federal policy shifts have practical impacts on local services and that California should be able to respond at the ballot box.

Opponents included former CRC chairs and commissioners who urged the committee to preserve the independent redistricting model. “The current CRC considered over 35,000 public comments to develop their maps, making difficult tradeoffs to protect communities,” Cynthia Dye, a former CRC chair, testified. Several witnesses and many public commenters said the Legislature should not pre‑empt the work of the independent commission by proposing legislative maps.

Members debated parliamentary motions during the hearing, including multiple attempts to amend the measure and a motion to read into the record more than 16,000 public comments that had been submitted via the committee’s online portal. Committee members declined several procedural motions to pause the hearing to allow more time to review filings and amendments; one motion to recess until all public comments were reviewed failed 2‑5.

The committee’s roll call on ACA 8 recorded the following votes: Ayes — Chair Pellerin; Assemblymembers Bennett, Berman, Salace and Stephanie (5). Noes — Assemblymembers Macedo and Tonguepa (2). The resolution now moves to the next committee steps required for a constitutional amendment to be placed before voters.

Clarifying details recorded during the hearing included the committee chair’s note that the committee’s public redistricting comment portal had received more than 16,000 submissions and multiple estimates from witnesses and members that a statewide special election to consider the measure would cost on the order of “about the same as the recall” — witnesses and members referenced a figure in the low hundreds of millions of dollars (witnesses used $200,000,000 as an illustrative figure during Q&A). Committee staff and authors said the Department of Finance would provide a formal cost estimate and the bill package (separately) included language that the Legislature intends to appropriate funds to reimburse counties for election administration costs.

Why it matters: ACA 8 would change how California responds to partisan mid‑decade redistricting in other states by putting a one‑time map change to voters rather than leaving all authority with the independent commission or with the Legislature. Supporters call it a defensive measure to protect federal‑level policy outcomes; critics say it undermines the independent redistricting system Californians adopted and risks high litigation and large election costs.

What’s next: Because ACA 8 is a proposed constitutional amendment, it must be approved by the Legislature and then by a majority of voters in a statewide election to become part of the state constitution. The measure moves forward in the legislative process and will be paired with related bills (SB 280 and AB 604) that address funding and the proposed district lines, respectively.

Sources: Committee hearing transcript (Aug. 19, 2025), witness testimony from Annie Chow (California Teachers Association), Danny Curtin (California Conference of Carpenters), Cynthia Dye and Jean Raya (former CRC commissioners), and recorded roll call votes.

Ending — The committee’s action advances a high‑stakes package of measures that would place an uncommon constitutional question before California voters: whether the state should adopt a temporary, voter‑approved congressional map only if other states first move to redraw their own districts mid‑decade.","After hours of testimony and public comment, the Assembly Elections Committee approved Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 (ACA 8), a proposed constitutional change that would let California voters decide in a special election whether to adopt temporary congressional district maps if other states adopt partisan mid‑decade redistricting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Informational hearing previews AB 604 maps proposed for a one-time voter referendum if ACA 8 passes

Committee approves SB 280 to fund Nov. 4 special election for ACA 8; bill advances to Appropriations

Assembly committee approves ACA 8 to let California voters decide on one-time mid-decade congressional maps