El Centro council adopts resolution opposing California Proposition 50

The El Centro City Council voted 3-2 to adopt a resolution opposing California Proposition 50, which would transfer authority to draw congressional maps from the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to the state legislature.

Mayor Pro Tem Ellet, who presented the resolution, read its findings and motion on the council floor and said the city “strongly opposes California Proposition 50.” The resolution cites concerns including the lack of a historical precedent for mid‑decade redistricting in California, the possible return of partisan gerrymandering, a shortened public review period and an estimated statewide election cost the resolution described as exceeding $250 million.

The resolution drew extended public comment. Francis Piopi, an El Centro resident of 47 years, urged the council to withdraw the item and said council action would inject partisan politics into a nonpartisan office: “You were all elected into nonpartisan positions, but some of you are attempting to insert partisan politics onto city council business.”

Other speakers disagreed. Maria Peynado, identifying herself as an Imperial County Democratic Party member and an El Centro resident, said she favors Proposition 50 and told the council the measure “places the power in the hands of the people of California.” Ramona Chaboya told the council the county election cost had already been covered and said “it would cost $680,000 to run this election, which has already been given by the state of California.”

Concerns about legal posting and notice were raised during public comment. Norma Villescusa said she learned about the special meeting via a city text message and argued the notice deadline had been missed; Mayor Carter responded that the agenda “was posted more than 24 hours before this portion of the meeting. It was posted at 03:30 yesterday,” and that the city clerk and mayor share responsibility for posting.

Councilmembers discussed the measure before voting. Councilmember Camarena referenced the voter‑created California Citizens Redistricting Commission and said that voters had established a 14‑member, nonpartisan commission to draw district lines; he read from the state commission’s website that the commission had no role in the legislature’s proposed congressional maps. Councilmember Maraki (appearing in the transcript also as “Marokin/Marakin”) and Councilmember Crenshaw said they heard residents’ concerns and that the subject is divisive; Maraki said he opposed the resolution. Mayor Pro Tem Ellet argued the proposed change was necessary to counter perceived partisan control in Sacramento and described the current situation as “cheating to bring more congressmen into the congress in Washington.”

After discussion, the council moved to adopt the resolution as read; a second was recorded. The final vote was announced as “Motion passes 3 with 2 no’s.” The meeting record does not attach individual yes/no votes to councilmember names in the transcript provided.

No additional formal directions to staff or implementation steps were recorded in the transcript. The action taken was the adoption of the resolution opposing Proposition 50; the council did not amend the text on the floor and did not direct follow‑up reporting in the portions of the transcript included here.

The item drew public concern about agenda posting, the costs of a statewide special election and the partisan implications of Proposition 50. The council’s formal action — adopting a local resolution opposing the measure — is a statement of position and does not affect the ballot language or the legal authority of entities outside the city.