Assembly approves putting mid‑decade redistricting question on the ballot after heated debate

The California State Assembly voted to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would allow a one‑time, mid‑decade redrawing of congressional districts and advanced a companion bill to schedule and fund a special election, after several hours of floor debate.

Assemblymembers voted 57 to 20 to adopt ACA 8 — a measure supporters say would give Californians the chance to approve temporary congressional maps — and the Assembly took a series of procedural actions on SB 280, the statutory bill to schedule the special election and provide county reimbursements.

The measure’s author on the floor, Assemblymember Berman, argued the proposal was a defensive response to what he called partisan maneuvers in other states. “We don’t want this fight, and we didn’t choose this fight. But with our democracy on the line, we cannot and will not run away from this fight,” Assemblymember Berman said during floor remarks. Assemblymember Pellerin, presenting SB 280, described the companion bill as logistical, saying it would allow elections officials to run a “fair and transparent, secure, and accessible election” and include language to make counties whole for costs.

Supporters framed the measure as giving voters the final say. Assemblymember Jackson told colleagues: “The people will save their government if the government itself will allow them,” and several speakers urged the legislature to let voters decide rather than acting unilaterally.

Opponents said the move squandered scarce state dollars and undercut the independent redistricting system voters approved in 2010. Assemblymember DeMaio called SB 280 “an unnecessary special election at a cost of a quarter billion dollars” and said the change would return map‑drawing power to politicians rather than an independent commission. Assemblymember Gallagher urged restraint and warned against “fighting fire with fire,” quoting scripture to argue the Assembly should not erode the independent process it previously defended.

Cost and timing were persistent themes. Opponents repeatedly cited estimates of “hundreds of millions” or about $250 million to run a statewide special election; proponents responded that the financial and policy consequences of federal actions cited on the floor — including cuts to Medicaid and federal withholding of funds — justified the expenditure and that SB 280 would reimburse counties for expenses.

Several procedural amendment motions to SB 280 were called and decided on the floor. The Assembly laid multiple amendment sets on the table by recorded votes during consideration of SB 280 (procedural tallies recorded on the floor: Ayes 48, Noes 19; Ayes 55, Noes 19; Ayes 55, Noes 19; Ayes 53, Noes 19). After full debate, the clerk announced, “Ayes 57, Nos 20. The measure passes. The measure is adopted.”

What changed and what’s next: By adopting ACA 8, the Assembly has approved placing the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for voters to decide. SB 280 contains statutory language to hold the special election on Nov. 4, 2025, and to cover county costs; sponsors said the bill is intended to coordinate the mechanics of the vote and to ensure counties can administer it on an accelerated schedule.

The debate illustrated a deep partisan split about process and priorities: proponents described an emergency response to nationwide redistricting actions, and opponents criticized the legislature for diverting limited funds from healthcare, schools and other state needs. The clerk’s announcement that the measure was adopted concluded floor action; the Assembly recorded the roll call and the measure will proceed through the usual transmittal and implementation steps for a ballot measure.