Assembly committee approves ACA 8 to send mid‑decade congressional map question to voters if other states gerrymander

The Assembly Elections Committee voted 5-2 on Aug. 19 to advance Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, sending the measure toward the ballot and setting up a possible Nov. 4, 2025 special election for California voters.

ACA 8 would allow California to temporarily adopt the congressional district lines contained in AB 604 if another state — cited repeatedly during the hearing as Texas — enacts partisan mid‑decade redistricting before the 2030 census. The amendment requires voter approval before any map would take effect.

Assemblymember Phil Berman, presenting ACA 8 on behalf of Speaker Rivas and other leaders, said the measure is a direct response to what he described as a national campaign to “redraw congressional districts mid‑decade in an effort to rig the upcoming election.” “Americans and Californians deserve better,” Berman said, and “California voters will have the final say” on any temporary maps.

Supporters from labor and education unions told committee members the step was defensive. Danny Curtin of the California Conference of Carpenters read the union’s letter of support and said the package was adopted “with great reluctance, but firm resolve,” citing federal policy changes and enforcement that the union said harm California workers. Annie Chow of the California Teachers Association said CTA backs ACA 8 because federal actions on funding and immigration are “attacks on our public institutions” and “we must fight back.”

Opponents included current and former members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission and good‑government groups, who argued repeatedly that California’s independent commission remains the better, more transparent system for drawing maps. Cynthia Dye, a former chair of the commission, said commissioners applied constitutional criteria and considered tens of thousands of public comments; she urged the committee to defend the independent process rather than approve a one‑time override.

The hearing was contentious. Members debated amendments and the committee’s handling of thousands of public comments; earlier in the meeting Chair Pellerin noted the committee’s redistricting portal had received “more than 16,000 submissions.” After extended debate and multiple procedural motions, the committee voted on ACA 8. A roll call reflected votes as read in the transcript: Pellerin — yes; Macedo — no; Bennett — yes; Berman — yes; Salace — yes; Stephanie — yes; Tongipa — no. The motion carried, 5 to 2.

If ACA 8 and its companion bills ultimately pass and voters approve the amendment on the ballot, the measure would only take effect if another state enacts partisan mid‑decade congressional redistricting before the 2030 census. Supporters framed that “trigger” as narrow: the amendment would not apply to census‑driven changes nor to redistricting required by federal court order.

Next steps: the measure now proceeds through the legislative process required to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot; SB 280, a separate bill discussed at the same hearing, would appropriate funds and make administrative changes so that a special election could be held on Nov. 4, 2025 if the package moves forward.

Proponents said the package is a defensive move to preserve fair representation while preserving the citizens commission after 2030; opponents said the proposal undermines the intent of the California Constitution and risks costly litigation. The Assembly will take further action in subsequent committee and floor votes before any measure goes to voters.

ACA 8 was the central focus of the Aug. 19 hearing; members of the public provided several hours of testimony both for and against the proposal, and multiple organizations — including labor unions, education associations and reproductive‑rights groups — registered support in the hearing record.