The Imperial County Board of Supervisors considered and declined to adopt a resolution opposing Proposition 50 on Oct. 7 after extensive public comment and a split board debate.

Deputy CEO Gil Rebelar presented background on Prop 50 and the proposed map changes, noting the measure would temporarily change the way California's congressional maps are drawn for the 2026 elections and that the county would remain whole in a single congressional district under both the current and proposed maps. Rebelar also summarized state-level positions, noting a mix of county and statewide support, opposition and neutrality among organizations.

During the public-comment period, speakers expressed strongly held, opposing views. Supporters argued Prop 50 was a necessary, temporary response to perceived national abuses of redistricting and would protect Californians' voice at the ballot box. "Prop 50 puts the power in the hands of the people of California," said Maria Pernado, who identified herself as an Imperial resident and Democratic Party activist. Opponents, including Imperial County Republican Central Committee Chair Sayers Morris, warned the initiative would weaken rural representation by pairing distant rural counties with wealthy coastal cities, saying it "threatens to weaken the voice of rural America."

Rebelar told the board that the fiscal impact to counties had been estimated statewide at roughly $250 million and that the state had allocated funds to help correct a ballot-labeling error. He said the county's share of election costs was estimated at about $681,000, funds the county has already received from the state to cover the special election.

After board discussion, Supervisor Ryan Kelly moved to approve a letter for the chairman to sign that would oppose Proposition 50. Supervisor Peggy Price seconded. The chair called for a vote and the motion failed. The transcript records the result as "Motion fails." Several supervisors and members of the public had urged caution about changing the independent redistricting process, while others emphasized letting voters decide at the ballot box.

The board did not adopt a formal county position opposing Prop 50; public speakers on both sides urged supervisors to reflect the views of their constituents. The failure of the motion means the county took no formal action opposing the measure at this meeting.

Notes: The meeting included an extended public-comment period and multiple supervisors asked follow-up questions about street-level impacts of the proposed map.