On August 14, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom stood before a crowd in Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, declaring, “Today is Liberation Day in the State of California.” With those words, he launched the Election Rigging Response Act, a bold and controversial campaign to redraw California’s congressional district maps—a direct counterstrike to Republican gerrymandering efforts in Texas. The move has set off a political firestorm, drawing sharp lines between the nation’s two most populous states and igniting a fierce debate about democracy, fairness, and the future of American elections.
At the heart of Newsom’s plan is a proposed constitutional amendment that would temporarily shift the power to draw California’s electoral maps from the state’s independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to the Democratic supermajority in the legislature. If approved by voters in a special election scheduled for November 4, 2025, the legislature would control redistricting for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles, after which power would revert to the independent commission. The timing is no accident: Texas Republicans, encouraged by former President Donald Trump, have unveiled a new electoral map designed to secure five additional GOP-held House seats. Newsom and his allies see California’s response as necessary to “neutralize” what they call a blatant attempt to rig the system in favor of Republicans.
“It’s not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil, and talk about the way the world should be,” Newsom said at the campaign launch, according to Time. “We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire.” He didn’t mince words about the stakes, warning that the battle over redistricting could determine control of Congress after the 2026 midterms. “Wake up America. Wake up to what Donald Trump is doing. Wake up to his assault on institutions and knowledge and history. Wake up to his war on science, public health. His war against the American people.”
The Election Rigging Response Act has financial backing from major Democratic donors and the House Democrats’ principal super PAC. Newsom’s message was amplified by a crowd of supporters carrying “Defend Democracy” placards, while Border Patrol officials staged a conspicuous operation outside the event, a move some interpreted as a show of force against Newsom’s resistance to Trump-era policies.
The California legislature, which is three-quarters Democratic, plans to introduce the necessary bills on August 18, with a tight deadline: lawmakers must vote by August 22 to ensure the special election takes place. Under the proposed legislation, the state would retain its Citizens Redistricting Commission—a body created in 2008 to remove political bias from the process—but its maps would be set aside until 2030 if Republican-led states like Texas proceed with their own partisan redistricting. In the meantime, the legislature would draw new maps, targeting five GOP-held districts in California in direct response to the five seats Texas Republicans aim to lock down.
The plan is not without its critics, and the road ahead is anything but smooth. Redistricting California could be a costly affair: Riverside County estimates the special election could cost up to $16 million, San Joaquin County up to $4 million, and Sacramento County up to $6.8 million. And according to a recent poll by Politico and the Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research, Californians favor the current independent commission nearly two-to-one over Newsom’s proposal. The commission, hailed as a bipartisan triumph when it was established, was the brainchild of Charles Munger Jr., a physicist and son of billionaire Charlie Munger. Munger has vowed to “vigorously defend the reforms he helped pass,” promising a robust legal and political fight against Newsom’s plan. His spokesperson, Amy Thoma Tan, told Politico that they “have the resources necessary” to counter the governor’s efforts.
Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the independent commission into law and has long railed against gerrymandering, is also expected to be a powerful voice in opposition. “He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that,” Schwarzenegger’s spokesperson Daniel Ketchell told Politico. “He’s opposed to what Texas is doing, and he’s opposed to the idea that California would race to the bottom to do the same thing.”
Meanwhile, in Texas, the redistricting saga continues. Governor Greg Abbott triggered a special legislative session last month, using the backdrop of devastating floods to push for mid-decade redistricting. Texas Democrats, in a dramatic move, fled the state to break quorum and stall the GOP’s plans. But as the California legislature prepares to act, Texas Democrats announced they plan to return home as early as August 18, possibly clearing the way for Republicans to press forward. “As Democrats across the nation join our fight to cause these maps to fail their political purpose, we’re prepared to bring this battle back to Texas under the right conditions and to take this fight to the courts,” said State Rep. Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic leader. Abbott, for his part, has threatened to call as many special sessions as needed and warned that Democrats who fled could face arrest and removal from office. “There will be no reprieve for the derelict Democrats who fled the state and abandoned their duty to the people who elected them,” Abbott declared.
Nationally, the redistricting standoff has prompted soul-searching among good government groups. Organizations like Common Cause, which have long decried partisan mapmaking, are notably holding their fire on California’s move. Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation for Common Cause, explained to Spectrum News that while the group still champions independent redistricting, “we can’t ignore the current political situation. We believe in why we’ve established this fairness criteria is to avoid a race to the bottom.” The group says any partisan mid-decade redistricting must meet standards of proportionality, public participation, and racial equity. Even former Attorney General Eric Holder, once a fierce opponent of gerrymandering, has signaled support for “responsible and responsive actions—on a temporary basis—to ensure that the foundations of our democracy are not permanently eroded.”
For many observers, the California-Texas redistricting showdown is emblematic of a new era in American politics—one where both sides are willing to bend or break norms to secure their vision of democracy. As Brian Smith, a political science professor at St. Edward’s University, put it, “If we can’t beat them, join them. They’re going to look and say, ‘You know what? Maybe two wrongs do make a right.’”
With the November special election looming, the fate of California’s congressional maps—and perhaps the balance of power in Washington—hangs in the balance. The coming months will test the resolve of lawmakers, activists, and voters alike as they grapple with the question: How far is too far when fighting for democracy?
