Senate committee hears redistricting package to put new congressional maps before voters if other states redraw mid‑decade; AB 604 moves to Appropriations

Senators in the California State Senate Elections Committee on Constitutional Amendments heard several hours of testimony on a legislative package — ACA 8 (a proposed constitutional amendment), SB 280 (funding and election administration changes) and AB 604 (proposed congressional maps) — that would let California hold a one‑time special election on Nov. 4 to approve new congressional maps only if other states enact mid‑decade congressional redistricting.

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, chair of the committee, opened the hearing by framing the measures as defensive and conditional: "We are in a defining moment, a time of choosing," she said, and described the package as a way for California "to stand as a firewall against the abuse of power." Senator Cabaldon, presenting ACA 8, told the committee the plan would give voters a transparent, ballot‑box decision if other states move to redraw seats mid‑decade.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bills are a narrow, time‑limited response to what they described as an unprecedented partisan effort in other states to redraw congressional maps in time to affect the 2026 midterms. Opponents — including former and current commissioners who served on the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) — said the package would sideline the independent CRC process that Californians approved by ballot and that the legislature—s proposed maps were produced with far less public engagement than the commission—s process.

What supporters said

- Senator Cabaldon said ACA 8 would "allow voters to enact maps" only if another state adopts congressional maps that take effect between Aug. 1, 2025 and Jan. 1, 2031, unless required by a court order. He and other proponents described the measure as a conditional, temporary tool and said the CRC process would resume after the next decennial census.

- Jody Hicks, CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said the federal actions affecting reproductive health and other federal policy made it necessary for California to provide voters a way to "push back" if other states change maps mid‑cycle. "If we don't fight back," she said, "federal attacks on reproductive healthcare will only get worse."

- Sarah Sadwani, political scientist and CRC commissioner, told the committee she had taken part in the CRC's unanimous adoption of the commission maps and said she supported strong measures to defend free and fair elections. Sadwani described the CRC process as "transparent, impartial, and equitable," but said California now faces national threats she believes justify a response.

What opponents said

- Connie Archbold Robinson and Jean Raya, former CRC commissioners who testified in opposition, said the CRC considered tens of thousands of public comments and produced maps through a public process. Robinson told the panel that the legislature's map "was developed by legislators and their consultants behind closed doors" and urged the committee to protect the independent process. Raya said the commission "set a gold standard" and warned that a partisan mid‑cycle map would break up communities and reduce competition.

- Several public commenters and witnesses raised two recurring objections: (1) that the legislature—s map was released to the public only days earlier and did not go through the CRC—s extensive in‑person hearings and iterative draft process; and (2) the estimated cost for a special election (witnesses and members cited a figure around $200 million) during a period of state fiscal pressure.

Key technical clarifications and committee questions

- Trigger and timing: Witnesses and authors repeatedly said the constitutional amendment would only take effect if other states adopt new congressional maps that take effect after Aug. 1, 2025 and before Jan. 1, 2031, unless required by a court order. If no other state triggers the condition, the measure would not take effect and the CRC process would continue at the normal post‑2030 census cycle.

- Maps availability and public review: Authors and counsel said the maps that would be placed before voters are posted online in an interactive form and, if the special election is called, would be made available in the voter pamphlet and public portals for roughly 74–78 days for review. The committee pressed whether digital access would be sufficient for voters without Internet access; witnesses pointed to the mailed voter guide and other outreach but opponents said the CRC's public meeting process is not replicated by online publication alone.

- Who drew the maps: Multiple committee members pressed the authors on who prepared the legislature—s proposed maps and when members of the public and legislators first saw them. Authors and legislative counsel said the maps build on the commission's 2021 work and 2020 census data but were finalized and posted publicly on the committee websites in the days immediately before the hearing; several senators observed that they and the public had only seen the final legislative map very recently.

Votes and next steps

- AB 604, the bill that contains the congressional maps and the statutory implementation language, was moved by the committee to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The motion, moved by Senator Limon, passed on a roll call: Cervantes — Aye; Choi — No; Allen — Aye; Limon — Aye; Umberg — Aye (4–1). SB 280 (funding/statutory changes) and ACA 8 (the constitutional amendment) were heard as informational items and not acted on in this committee today.

Community and cost context

- Witnesses and several senators cited an estimated administration cost for a statewide special election in the range of roughly $200 million; proponents framed that as a targeted cost compared to the potential federal funding at stake from federal policy changes, while opponents urged that the state should not absorb the expense without wider public process.

What the committee record shows and what it does not

- The hearing record contains repeated statements that the legislative maps "build upon" the CRC work and retain many districts unchanged, but committee members and opposition witnesses demanded more transparency on the drafting process and any outside inputs. The authors repeatedly emphasized the conditional and temporary nature of the proposal and that the CRC process would resume after 2030.

Where things stand

- AB 604 was passed from the committee to the Senate Appropriations Committee (4–1). ACA 8 and SB 280 were considered in hearing only; if AB 604 and ACA 8 ultimately move forward on a schedule that triggers the special election, voters would have the final decision at the ballot box.

Ending note

- The hearing included sustained exchanges between commissioners who defended the CRC process and legislative authors who said the package is necessary to respond to actions in other states. Committee members asked for further clarifications on costs, public outreach, and the provenance of the legislative maps; the record shows those questions remained focal points going forward.