Informational hearing on AB 604 shows proposed congressional map; backers say it preserves communities, critics warn of partisan motive

Assembly members held an informational hearing on Aug. 19 to discuss AB 604, the list of proposed congressional district lines that would be used only if ACA 8 and companion measures are approved by voters and the bill’s trigger conditions are met.

AB 604 presents specific census block‑based maps that sponsors say preserve communities of interest and in several instances split fewer cities than the plan adopted by the Citizens Redistricting Commission after the 2020 census. Tom Willis, an attorney with Olson Ramshaw who presented as a technical witness, said the maps and related materials would be included in voter materials if the package proceeds to a special election. Terry Brennan of SEIU, who testified in support, told the committee the maps were developed using “traditional redistricting criteria consistent with the state commission criteria and the Fair Maps Act,” and that objective metrics showed compactness comparable to or better than the current commission map.

Opponents and former commission members disputed those claims. Cynthia Dye, former chair of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, said the commission considered tens of thousands of public comments in developing its maps and warned that legislative drafting outside the commission’s transparent, public processes risks returning to partisan line drawing. “This map was released yesterday, yet you’re voting today,” Dye told the committee. “Why are you not hearing from good government organizations? Because it takes time for organizations to inform their members…That’s what democracy looks like.”

Witnesses noted differences between the maps released on Friday and later tweaks made overnight; several members of the committee and public commenters referenced map adjustments made in the hours before the hearing. Supporters said a majority of districts would remain unchanged or would change only slightly: committee testimony referenced that roughly 76.7% of residents would remain in the same district and that eight districts would be identical to the CRC plan.

The informational hearing did not include a committee vote on AB 604. Committee staff and sponsors said maps and explanatory materials would be included in any voter pamphlet if the constitutional amendment and funding package proceed. The hearing included extensive public comment both in support and in opposition; speakers ranged from union officials and education representatives to dozens of individuals who said the proposal undermines the independent redistricting process.

Proponents emphasized the temporary nature of the maps, their stated conformity with the Voting Rights Act, and the argument that the proposal is a measured response to partisan actions in other states. Opponents described the package as retaliatory, argued the independent commission remains the best method for drawing lines, and warned the maps could prompt litigation if adopted.

AB 604 remained an informational item at the Aug. 19 hearing; its fate depends on ACA 8, SB 280 and further legislative action and — if ACA 8 is approved by voters — implementation details and any legal challenges.