California will ask voters this fall to decide whether to redraw this state’s congressional lines after its Democratic-controlled Legislature formally approved a sweeping redistricting plan on Thursday, a response to GOP-led efforts in Texas. 

The plan, if voters give it the green light, could give Democrats five additional House seats, potentially nullifying the gains Republicans hope to get through Texas redistricting.

Here are five things to know about the Golden State’s redistricting plan:

What does the ballot measure say?

The measure approved by the state legislature is set to go on a November special election ballot as Proposition 50, a proposed constitutional amendment named for the 50 states. 

Prop 50 would, if approved by California voters in November, allow for the adoption of new congressional maps that were laid out in a separate bill passed by the legislature, aiming to create five Democratic pickup opportunities. 

The current districts, drawn by the citizens redistricting commission after the last census, would be bypassed until the commission draws new boundary lines in 2031. 

The text of the amendment proposal cites President Trump’s call for Republican-led states “to undertake an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting of congressional seats to rig the 2026 United States midterm elections before voting begins,” pointing out efforts in Texas, Florida, Ohio and elsewhere. 

“It is the intent of the people that California’s temporary maps be designed to neutralize the partisan gerrymandering being threatened by Republican-led states without eroding fair representation for all communities,” the resolution section reads. 

How much support is there for redistricting?

Democratic leaders in and out of California have rallied support behind the redistricting effort.

Still, Newsom and Golden State Democrats will likely have to campaign to make sure the measure gets the majority vote it needs to pass. 

California’s independent redistricting commission, which typically redraws lines once a decade, was a popular move — and experts predict voters will need clear assurances that bypassing it is temporary. 

A Politico-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab survey taken earlier this month found that just 36 percent of California voters support returning congressional redistricting authority to the state legislature, compared to 64 percent who back the independent redistricting commission — though the poll question notably didn’t specify whether such a change would be temporary. 

But a POLITICO-UC Berkeley Citrin Center survey conducted last week found that while 70 percent of Democratic voters across the country think gerrymandering is “never acceptable,” 63 percent majority think California should nevertheless “fight back” against efforts in red states.

Despite bypassing its citizen commission for the temporary redistricting, the proposed measure text itself acknowledges that it’s California policy “to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide” and calls on Congress to pass federal legislation for a U.S. Constitutional amendment that requires the system nationwide. 

Which Republicans will be affected by the new maps?

California’s map proposal would give Democrats a chance at five more House seats in the Golden State, where they already hold 43 of 52 slots. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R), who has proposed federal legislation that would ban mid-decade redistricting nationwide, would be one of the lawmakers most impacted. Kiley on Thursday claimed he was “the No. 1 target” and challenged Newsom to a debate “on the merits of his proposal.” 

Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s (R) seat would jump from a district Trump won by double digits to one that would have gone to former Vice President Harris by more than 10 points, according to Cook Political Report. Rep. Ken Calvert’s (R) seat would be effectively replaced by a new Latino-majority seat in central Los Angeles County that could make for a strong Democratic pickup opportunity. 

Republican Reps. Darrel Issa and David Valadao would also be drawn into more competitive districts, though election analysts suggest both seats could still be tough for Democrats to flip. 

Meanwhile, Democrats who saw tough fights in 2024 could get a boost for the midterms with safer lines.

Republicans hold a slim 219-212 majority in the House, and control of Congress could come down to just a few seats next November. 

When and for how long would the maps take effect?

If voters approve the maps in the special election, they’ll take effect ahead of next year’s high-stakes midterms and hold through the ’26, ’28 and ’30 elections. 

The maps, proposed in part by the Democrats’ House campaign arm, will effectively circumvent the independent redistricting commission until the end of the decade. After 2030, the power to redistrict would revert back to the independent commission, and the Golden State would resume redrawing its lines once a decade, in line with the U.S. Census. 

Advocates for the redistricting plan have stressed that it’s a temporary change, made necessary by the GOP efforts elsewhere. 

Top Democrats have lauded California’s maneuvering. 

Former President Obama told a Tuesday fundraiser for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that -– though he sees a “long-term goal” to end political gerrymandering in America — Newsom is taking “a reasonable approach” with the temporary plans, according to excerpts shared by CNN. 

What are critics saying? 

Opponents of the redistricting plan say it goes against the will of the voters, who approved the independent redistricting commission back in 2008 and 2010. 

“If we abandon the independent redistricting process that Californians created, we don’t just lose a tool, we lose trust,” said Assemblymember Greg Wallis (R) on Thursday.

Reform California is one group calling for a no vote on Prop 50, arguing that the special election is a “costly and unnecessary” venture that would “end fair elections” in California. 

An estimate by Assembly Republicans calculated that the venture would cost taxpayers more than $235 million, CalMatters reports. 

During hours of debate over the legislative package on Thursday, Republicans also railed against the pace of action, which included a gut-and-amend process to move the material forward, and questioned who drew the maps. 

California GOP legislators earlier this week filed suit with a petition asking the state Supreme Court to block action on the legislation, arguing that the sprint to vote on the legislation package violated the state constitution. The state court rejected that petition on Wednesday, allowing the efforts to move forward in the Legislature.

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is among the Golden State Republicans who have vowed to fight the redistricting effort by campaigning against the measure. 

Lyle Menendez, 57, was denied parole Friday by a California board, a day after his younger brother Erik was also rejected in his bid for release from the San Diego prison, where the two have spent nearly 35 years.

On Thursday, parole commissioners told Erik Menendez that despite strong family support, his conduct in custody — including repeated cellphone violations — showed he remained unwilling to follow rules. 

“Contrary to your supporters’ beliefs, you have not been a model prisoner,” commissioner Robert Barton said, describing his behavior as “selfish” and “disturbing.”

The panel ordered Erik to remain incarcerated for at least three more years. The decision left him visibly shaken, even as he listened intently to Barton, who added: “Two things can be true. They can love and forgive you, and you can still be found unsuitable for parole.”

The hearings for both brothers were the closest they have come to release since their life sentences were reduced in May, making them eligible for review.

The Menendez brothers were convicted in 1996 of murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, inside the family’s Beverly Hills mansion on Aug. 20, 1989. 

Prosecutors argued they killed to gain access to a multimillion-dollar inheritance, while defense attorneys contended they acted out of self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father. The jury sided with prosecutors.

After the killings, the brothers embarked on a spending spree, purchasing luxury cars, watches, trips abroad and, in Lyle’s case, a New Jersey restaurant. They were arrested in 1990, after Erik confessed to his therapist.

At Thursday’s hearing, Barton underscored the brutal nature of the crime, particularly the “execution-style” killing of Kitty Menendez.

“The killing of your mother especially showed a lack of empathy and reason,” he said. “I don’t know that I’ve ever had rage to that level, ever.”

Nearly 35 years later, the Menendez case remains etched in American memory as one of the most sensational parricide trials of the 20th century. Friday’s ruling means both brothers remain behind bars, their supporters’ calls for forgiveness once again unanswered.

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta weighed in on the FBI’s raid of President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, suggesting Friday night that there’s “some targeting here going on.” 

“We don‘t know all the facts here because we don‘t know what the Justice Department said to a magistrate judge in order to get a warrant,” Panetta said during his appearance on CNN’s “Erin Burnett Outfront.” 

“But when you stand back and you look at the criticism that John Bolton has made and you look at the president and how sensitive he is about having those criticisms, particularly from somebody who was in his administration, it‘s pretty hard not to come to the conclusion that there‘s some targeting here going on,” Panetta told host Erin Burnett. 

Bolton’s Bethesda, Md., home was raided Friday morning. Agents also raided his Washington, D.C., office. The former ambassador, a vocal critic of Trump, was not detained and has not been charged with any crimes. 

The search was related to classified materials. The former national security adviser was previously probed over his memoir about his time in the Trump administration, with the president and his allies saying that Bolton disclosed classified information. The investigation was dropped in 2021 during the administration of former President Biden. 

Vice President Vance said that the raid was not retribution for Bolton’s sharp criticism of Trump’s administration. 

Trump said he was not given advance notice of the raid but criticized Bolton as a “lowlife” who could be “very unpatriotic.”

“He’s not a smart guy. But he could be a very unpatriotic guy. We’re going to find out. I know nothing about it. I just saw it this morning, they did a raid,” the president said Friday morning. 

Artificial intelligence threatens to cause a jobs shock across offices, warehouses, call centers, clinics, classrooms and more. Faced with backlash among displaced workers, the industry and its lobbyists will likely lean on cash‑transfer schemes — universal basic income and its like — as a release valve. 

That path would paper over dislocation while entrenching gatekeepers. It would weaken bargaining power at work and create new and unintended social and fiscal dependencies.

We can do better than that. We have an opportunity instead to bend the trajectory, level the playing field and ensure that the public that pays for the externalities of AI also benefits from its returns. 

What does this entail? Open and contestable markets; modern data rights; liability that governs control; guard-railing technological change to serve the shared good; and most importantly, public sharing in AI’s upside.

The U.S. should establish a professionally managed, firewall‑insulated Public AI Wealth Fund that holds diversified stakes across the AI stack and distributes an annual dividend tied to the AI upside (i.e. realized returns).

This would put the focus on public dividends, not basic income; it would give the public a meaningful, lasting stake in AI’s returns, while using competition, data, labor and energy rules to keep the field open and the harms in check.

The deal between Nvidia and AMD and the U.S government, which involves payments of 15 percent of revenue from sales of some advanced chips, provides precisely the platform to kick-start the creation of this Public AI Wealth Fund.

Capitalize it with equity warrants from firms receiving large subsidies, tax credits or preferential contracts; a compute excise above thresholds set by rulemaking; a windfall‑profits surtax on extraordinary AI margins; and location‑based fees where data centers draw on subsidized energy or water. 

Adopt a simple fiscal rule: preserve principal and pay a universal dividend from realized returns. Dividends will start off modest and grow as the fund matures, aligning public returns with performance rather than with permanent deficit finance.

Sharing in the upside should complement — not replace — open markets and individual economic choice.

Congress should treat exclusive deals as presumptively anticompetitive once market‑share triggers are met; bar self‑preferencing in AI marketplaces; and scrutinize “model‑plus‑platform” tie‑ups as potential vertical restraints. Interoperability and portability — APIs, export formats, and the ability to move fine‑tunes — should be the default, with clear timelines and contractual exit rights. These rules ensure the public is not forced to buy into entrenched barriers.

Individuals need a clear opt‑out for the use of personal data in training, a right to know whether their data was used, and remedies for unauthorized use. For high‑risk uses — hiring, housing, health care, finance and critical infrastructure — deployers should bear a duty of care: documented impact assessments, human‑in‑the‑loop plans, incident reporting, and audit trails. The burden should rest on those who profit from deployment to show they have met these duties.

The Federal Trade Commission can scrutinize deceptive AI claims, dark patterns and data misuse. The Justice Department and the FTC can challenge exclusionary bundles and exclusivity in contracts. The Securities and Exchange Commission can require disclosure of material workforce impacts from AI deployments, not just AI “strategies.” Civil‑rights agencies can enforce explainability, auditing and appeal rights in automated decisions. Energy and water regulators can require facility‑level reporting from hyperscale data centers and condition interconnects on demand‑response and conservation plans.

The executive branch and states should move in parallel. States should seed their own AI wealth funds with data‑center and related revenues and equity warrants tied to subsidized projects, coordinated with — but independent from — the national fund. A federated research cloud across universities, national labs and state innovation hubs would give academia and students access to shared AI infrastructure without having to depend on vendor credits.

Ask schools, employers and hospitals which systems they use, how they were evaluated, and how you can appeal decisions. Insist that public dollars tied to AI come with ownership, transparency and exit rights.

Talk to your elected officials and those that are running for office; tell them it is time for our nation to build a Public AI Wealth Fund.

John deVadoss was a general manager at Microsoft for two decades. He did his Ph.D. work in AI, at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, specializing in Machine Learning.