Seal Beach council opposes California Proposition 50, saying new map would split city among three congressional districts

The Seal Beach City Council voted unanimously Sept. 22 to adopt a resolution opposing California Proposition 50, a statewide measure that would permit temporary mid‑cycle changes to congressional maps. Council members said the proposed maps tied to the measure would split Seal Beach among three separate congressional districts.

Mayor Pro Tem Steel led the council’s presentation of the interactive maps and told the council that Old Town, Hill and Leisure World would be placed in a district extending from the top of Long Beach down through Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, while the Naval Weapons Station would be assigned to District 45 and College Park East would be paired with inland communities such as Whittier and Lakewood. Steel said those changes would leave Seal Beach with fragmentary representation and dilute the city’s voice at the federal level.

“Seal Beach is being divided into three separate congressional districts,” Mayor Pro Tem Steel said during council remarks. He told the council that the proposed configuration would make it harder for a single member of Congress to prioritize coastal issues important to Seal Beach.

Several council members echoed the concern about dilution. Councilmember Wong cited population counts in the proposed new district that would place Seal Beach’s share at roughly 5,000 people among much larger cities, reducing the relative influence of Seal Beach constituents. Councilmember Wong summarized census numbers presented to the council, noting the city’s total population figure and the small subset that would be included in the new district configuration.

Not all speakers agreed. Public commenter Catherine Showalter, who said she had examined the legislative analyst’s materials and the text of Assembly Bill 604 (the bill tied to the Prop. 50 maps), told the council she could not find a source showing Seal Beach would be split into three districts. Showalter said the maps in AB 604 instead placed the entire city into a revised 42nd/40th configuration (she referred to it as the 40 Second Congressional District) and urged the council not to adopt the resolution opposing the proposition.

The council discussed the competing interpretations and national context: council members referenced federal proposals to ban mid‑decade redistricting and the role of California’s independent redistricting commission. After debate, Councilmember Senecal moved to adopt the draft resolution opposing Proposition 50; the motion passed on a 5-0 roll call.

The adopted resolution does not change federal law; it registers the city council’s official position and directs staff to publish the resolution and nonpartisan voter information. Council members said the purpose is to draw attention to how the proposed maps would affect a small community that relies on a single, focused congressional representative for shoreline, water and seaport priorities.

The council’s action comes ahead of the Nov. 4, 2025 statewide ballot on Proposition 50. The city did not enact any regulatory changes as part of the vote; the resolution is an expression of policy position and will be posted on the city website and included in informational materials.