Nobody will ever accuse Gavin Newsom of not attempting to exploit the news cycle or cravenly disrespect the will of California's voters for political gain.
As we've covered, he's using his taxpayer-funded press office account on X to curse at Republican elected officials and berate his own constituents if they dare to ask questions. He's refused to provide funding to implement Prop 36, the 2024 ballot initiative overwhelmingly passed by California voters that rolls back part of the Newsom-backed soft-on-crime Prop 47. Even though California voters have twice voted down ballot initiatives that would abolish the death penalty, Newsom has instituted his own moratorium against it. And now, Newsom wants to do an end run around the California constitution and redraw Congressional district lines in the middle of the decade - because he's mad at Donald Trump.
That plan is as delusional as it gets, even according to Newsom supporters. From Asm. Alex Lee, one of the most far-left legislators in the state:
As my colleague Bonchie reported, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called a special session of the Texas legislature to redraw the state's Congressional maps to the GOP's advantage before the 2026 midterms.
READ MORE: Trump and Abbott End Run Around Democrat 2026 Hopes, and a Total Freak-Out Ensues
In response, Newsom labeled the plan as a plot to "steal" Congressional seats via gerrymandering, and promised to do the same in California.
“They’re not f— around now. They’re playing by a totally different set of rules,” Newsom told podcaster TN Holler. Since Democrats have a supermajority in Sacramento, Newsom said, his party could “gerrymander like no other state.” Newsom claims that he and California Dems have been "playing fair" but that Abbott and Trump's actions are making him question that.
Playing fair? Like when Newsom teamed up with legislative Democrats last year to quickly pass a slate of "public safety" bills and keep Prop 36 off the ballot altogether?
On Pod Save America, Newsom outlined the possibilities, as he sees them: "[The legislature] can put something on the ballot. I could call a special election. We can change the constitution with the consent of the voters, and I think we would win that."
In California, the power to draw state and federal legislative districts is given to an (allegedly) independent redistricting commission, and it only meets after each census is completed. That process is part of the state's constitution, put there by the voters via ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2010.
California's constitution can only be changed by the voters, so for Newsom to use this avenue for redistricting a new ballot initiative changing the constitution would have to qualify through signature gathering or a two-thirds vote of the legislature, and then a special election would have to be held sometime in 2025, so there would be enough time for candidates to file and qualify to run in the new districts. Since a not-small number of Democrat state legislators aren't on board with Newsom's plot, getting the two-thirds vote of the legislature to put the measure on the ballot would be problematic. And even if they succeeded, turnout is always terrible for special elections, though this one would have passions running high on both sides, and that could affect turnout.
Newsom's Plan B is to just have the legislature draw mid-decade maps and then have the redistricting commission resume after the 2030 census. He argues that the California Constitution is silent on the prospect of mid-decade redistricting, and argues that silence is consent, so it should be allowed. Justin Levitt, redistricting law expert at Loyola Law School, told LA Times columnist Mark Barabak that's not quite the case.
“We have a commission. Not only that, a Constitution and the commission’s in the Constitution. And not only that, we have a Constitution that says you only get to redistrict once every 10 years, unless there’s a legal problem with the existing maps.”
And, Democrat political attorney and California resident Max Kanin pointed out that the California Supreme Court ruled back in 1983 that once a valid redistricting plan has been adopted, a mid-decade redistricting plan is prohibited, whether by the Legislature or by initiative. Quoting from Legislature v. Deukmejian, 34 Cal. 3d 658, 680 (Cal. 1983), Kanin wrote:
"Under the well-established constitutional principles that we have reviewed, it is clear that because one presumptively valid redistricting plan based on the 1980 census has already been adopted, article XXI prohibits the adoption of a second redistricting plan either by the Legislature or by initiative."
That kinda takes the wind out of his sails, doesn't it? Kanin thinks so - he added the following to his case law citation:
"In order to fight Trumpism, we need smart and strategic leadership, not just throwing around stuff and pretending it's bold."
Even if Newsom got past all of that, there's still the Voting Rights Act to comply with, making it necessary to have a certain number of majority Latino districts. Punchbowl News estimates that California Dems could only pick up two to four seats if they draw gerrymandered districts that comply with the Voting Rights Act - not enough to counter the predicted Texas gain. And if they ignore the Voting Rights Act, they'll face expensive and lengthy legal challenges, especially from the Trump Department of Justice. There is simply no possibility that Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon would allow those violations to stand.
What happened here is that Newsom was feeling like quite the Alpha male when he was in Tennessee getting a gun from bootlicking interviewer Shawn Ryan and having a beer with the TN Holler guy, started mouthing off, and now he feels like he has to stick with his semi-drunken threats and social media swagger. That's not a great quality in an elected leader. The LA Times columnist Barabak shared similar sentiments, but expanded upon them a bit:
"Politics rooted in vengeance is both dangerous and wrong, whether it’s Trump or Newsom looking to settle scores.
"There’s also the matter of delivering vacant threats. Some Democrats may thrill each time Newsom delivers one of his pugnacious pronouncements. That seems to be a big part of his presidential campaign strategy. But those same voters may tire of the lack of follow through, as Californians have.
"Newsom has a well-deserved reputation for over-promising and under-delivering.
"That’s not likely to serve him well on the national stage."
No, it's not, but I hope that Newsom keeps going down this path, wasting lots of time and money in the process.
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.
Help us continue to tell the truth about Gavin Newsom's failures. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.