Appropriations Committee advances ACA 8 and companion bill to fund special election on mid‑decade redistricting

The Assembly Appropriations Committee on Tuesday advanced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 (ACA 8) and a companion financing bill, Senate Bill 280, sending both measures out of committee on roll call for further Assembly consideration.

ACA 8 would allow a one‑time, mid‑decade use of an alternative set of congressional district maps (described in the proposal as AB604 maps) only if other states undertake partisan mid‑decade redistricting that the measure says would illegally dilute representation. SB 280 would appropriate funding that the Secretary of State and county registrars would need to run a special statewide election on Nov. 4 so voters could approve or reject the amendment.

Why it matters: Proponents say the measures are a limited, conditional response to what they described as a coordinated effort by other states to redraw congressional districts in ways that would affect federal representation and harm California voters. Opponents called the proposal a roll‑back of independent redistricting and criticized the choice to hold an expensive, stand‑alone election while the state faces budget pressures.

Presenters and supporters told the committee the package is narrowly tailored and respects voter control. "This constitutional amendment along with the 2 companion bills are [a] measured and thoughtful response to the power grab that is happening out of Washington DC," said Isaac Bridal, the bill presenter, adding that the maps would be used only if other states enact partisan mid‑decade maps and only through the 2030 congressional term. Jody Hicks, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, testified in strong support and warned of federal proposals she said would cut hundreds of millions in federal funding for health services, saying the state must be able to respond: "If we are not able to have a fair election, if we're not able to fight back in the way that we need to, we're not standing up for our values here in California," Hicks said.

Trina Turner, a 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission commissioner who also testified in support, told the committee that recent federal and out‑of‑state moves were already harming marginalized communities and that California needed an option now, not later: "There are groups I respect that say that Newsom is dead wrong in this. Gerrymandering is a threat. However, I want to say that marginalized communities...that is the exact reason why we need to move forward with ACA 8. I'm in total support of it and believe it the right thing for our nation," Turner said.

Opponents argued the package undercuts the independent redistricting system voters approved and would impose an unnecessary cost on the state. Tom Lackey, Republican caucus chair and an opposition witness, urged lawmakers to preserve the citizens commission that draws maps: "California should be the model for the nation, not a state that tosses out reforms the minute they inconvenience those in power," he said. Assemblymember Dixon told the committee she would vote no, arguing the special election would be an "unnecessary, unbudgeted, expensive special election" and citing an estimate she gave of more than $230 million in statewide costs.

Members pressed procedural and fiscal questions about who would pay and how counties would be reimbursed. Assemblymember Tangipa and others — representing largely rural and small counties — repeatedly asked whether counties would be guaranteed up‑front payments so that small county elections offices would not have to front costs. Christian Beltran of the Department of Finance told the committee the bill's language "specifies that the Department of Finance will continue to work with the Secretary of State's office as well as our county partners to ensure that funding for this election will be made in advance to the election. So we will continue to ensure that counties...will be made whole."

Members also asked about likely litigation and the state attorney general's needs. The discussion referenced an early lawsuit filed in response to the pending legislation and the expectation of more litigation; proponents argued past investments in litigation have returned larger financial benefits to the state. Opponents asked whether any additional emergency appropriations for litigation would be necessary; proponents and budget officials said the state has legal tools and that the Department of Finance expects to work with partners to manage costs.

The committee record included concerns about political conflicts and fairness. An opposition speaker raised a conflict‑of‑interest concern involving a witness's family member; the committee chair reminded the record that Jody Hicks was testifying in her professional capacity as Planned Parenthood's CEO.

What the committee did: The committee approved a motion to move ACA 8 forward (motion moved and seconded on the record) and separately approved SB 280, which sets up the appropriation and front‑end distribution mechanics for county election costs. Both measures were advanced out of Appropriations on roll call and are expected to go to the Assembly floor for further debate. The committee record shows the measures will be placed on the Assembly calendar for floor debate the next day.

Votes at a glance (committee action recorded in today's hearing): - ACA 8 (proposed constitutional amendment): motion for "due pass" moved and seconded on the record; advanced out of committee on roll call (specific tally not recorded in the hearing transcript excerpt). - SB 280 (appropriation for Nov. 4 special election to place ACA 8 before voters): motion moved and seconded on the record; advanced out of committee on roll call (specific tally not recorded in the hearing transcript excerpt).

Committee next steps and timeline: If the Assembly approves the measures, ACA 8 would still require voter approval on the ballot to take effect. SB 280 directs the Department of Finance and the State Controller to provide funding to the Secretary of State and county registrars so counties are paid in advance to run the election, and the bill ties timing and appropriation language to those administrative processes.

Reporting note: The transcript contains repeated references to an estimated special‑election cost of about $230 million (a figure cited during testimony and questioning) and to broader federal funding claims made by witnesses; the article reports those figures as stated in the committee hearing and attributes them to the speakers who made them.