This transcript includes Carl DeMaio speaking and a recording of Gavin Newsom speaking.
Some of DeMaio's statements are highlighted.
Some of DeMaio's statements are fact-checked or commented upon. We haven't gone overboard in the fact-checking. DeMaio repeats false premises many times throughout. Newsom's understanding of the law is correct. The opinions of either one are not facts.
Neither DeMaio nor Newsom mention that the Ohio legislature is also redistricting its state's congressional districts this year.
The redistricting issue begs the question: Which year's census numbers will be used? Remember that the Census Bureau, after producing the 2020 census data, revealed that it had made errors and over-reported numbers in some states to such an extent that the allocation of the 435 congressional seats would have changed. Note also that Proposition 6 (1980), intentionally removed the requirement from the 1879 constitution that only citizen-eligible people could be used to draw redistricting maps. Neither Proposition 11 (2008) nor Proposition 20 (2010) restored that requirement.
Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. A small number of edits were made to correct spellings, mostly of names.
(0:00 - 2:34) He actually said it out loud. This week, California Governor Gavin Newsom said he has a plan to rig the 2026 midterm congressional elections to give Democrats the House majority. It all centers on flipping the most vulnerable Republican seats here in California. Coming up, we'll tell you about his offensive plan, tell you why it's absolutely illegal, what we're doing to fight back, and what are the top seats that might be flipped in California in 2026 that could give the Democrats the majority. I'm Carl DeMaio, Chairman of Reform California and a California State Representative, and I touched on this topic in a previous podcast because I knew that this was coming. But this week, Governor Gavin Newsom actually said the words out loud he is going to try to rig the 2026 midterm election to manipulate the lines on congressional districts to hand Democrats the House majority. It's called gerrymandering. It is offensive. It's unethical. But sometimes it happens because might makes right. The parties that control the statehouse across the country, and Democrats and Republicans both are guilty of doing this. They don't like it. They both do it. They draw the lines of their districts. So they pack in certain voters in certain districts, which means that when they get to draw the lines, they get to pick the voters rather than the voters getting to pick the elected representatives. Gerrymandering is where the elected, powerful politicians get to choose their voters. And therefore, it's not a representative democracy. It's a manipulated democracy. The election produces a partisan advantage for one party over the other. And again, I'm being as fair as I can here. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. I don't think it should ever be done. And when Gavin Newsom announces that he openly is going to do it, well, he needs to be called out. And yes, he needs to be stopped. So coming up, I'm gonna talk about his plan, what he said. I'm gonna play the video. You get to judge for yourself. It's pretty offensive. I'm gonna tell you about the law. [According to DeMaio.] And more importantly, I'm gonna tell you how we're going to fight back. But in order to fight back, we need your help. He wants to rig the election for Democrats through redistricting. (2:35 - 7:11) We want to make elections fair, not only by recruiting quality candidates to run in seats and flip seats, but more importantly, by getting the California Voter ID Initiative qualified for the ballot in 2026. That is our plan. Our plan is restoring the integrity of elections. His plan is rigging the election. So go to the web site ReformCalifornia.org, ReformCalifornia.org. That is ground zero in our fight to take back California from the insanity of the far left. You'll get all sorts of information on that site, all sorts of news that you won't hear from the liberal media. You'll be able to look at our various campaigns, save Prop 13, flip target seats, elect better school board members. Ah, yes, the California Voter ID Initiative campaign is up there. Click under California Voter ID, and it will take you to the page with all the information on our initiative to require citizenship verification when you register to vote and require identification when you cast a ballot in each election. Don't just sit there and learn, get involved in the fight. Go to the bottom of the web site and sign up right now. At the bottom of the web site, put in your first name, last name, email, phone, and zip code, and you'll be tethered into our growing movement to take back California from the insanity of the far left. So go to that web site. Also, chip in a contribution, put fuel in our tank as we make California competitive again and great again. So what did Gavin Newsom say? So redistricting is the drawing of lines for congressional districts and state legislative districts. The lines are supposed to be drawn in three ways. Number one, equal population, but that allows for manipulation of who gets put in each of the districts. Number two, it has to be not driven by partisan, in theory, not driven by partisan considerations. They never admit that they're doing that, but this is what Newsom has actually said. Yeah, I'm going to draw the map to give it to Democrats. It's not supposed to be driven by partisan implications, but rather, are districts reflective of natural boundaries? Does it keep a city or a county together? Communities of interest, are they put together? Do they go to the same hospital system? Do they go to the same school systems? Communities of interest, that there's a logical drawing of the map, because gerrymandered districts can look weird. They can start in one portion of a county and zigzag literally a city block width all the way up for miles and miles, just so it scoops in the right voters. That's not a legitimate district. It's not a community of interest. So the second factor is, is it geographically and community-wise a consistent, logical district? And third, yes, there are civil rights considerations that you have to draw districts that, because of federal law, take into account giving a greater voice for minorities. So Latino populations, Asian populations, African American populations do have a status in redistricting that if you can draw a map to give them a majority Latino district, for example, and we have many of those in California, you are required under the civil rights, federal civil rights laws, to look into that as an option. So those are the three criteria, not politics. What Gavin is suggesting is to break the law, and in order to break the law, he has to break the law a second time just to even get the opportunity. So here's what he actually said, and I'm gonna let you judge for yourself what you think his intent is. Now, redistricting is done every 10 years with the census. Some states can go back and revise their maps. It happens. Texas is thinking about doing it. [Several federal lawsuits were filed against Texas challenging its decennial redistricting maps. The first one was filed in 2021. The lawsuits were consolidated under LULAC v. Abbott (W.D. Texas). Oral arguments were heard in May and June 2025. Proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" are due on or before September 3, 2025. This is what prompted Newsom to want to redistrict. He said, okay, if Texas is going to redraw its map and give it to the Republicans, we're going to redraw our map in California to give it to Democrats. Again, I say neither is appropriate. But in California, we have a constitutional amendment that voters passed that says only an independent commission can draw the lines. [FALSE. Proposition 20, the current law, does not use the word "only." The commissions' authority to draw maps exists for 7-1/2 months during each year ending in 1 and expires on August 15 of that year.] And by the way, this is their web site. It's called wedrawtheline.ca.gov with all the maps up there. It has a commission up there. I'm not very happy with the commission, but hey, the law requires that only the commission, an independent commission of citizens, draw the lines, not the governor, not the legislature. There's even a prohibition against the legislators and the governor engaging in dialogue and lobbying the commission. (7:12 - 8:21) Okay, so they're not supposed to be involved. The voters amended the Constitution saying you're not allowed to be involved. Well, Gavin Newsom has decided just to ignore all that and say, well, we're just going to redraw the lines within the 10-year period. Nothing prohibits us from doing that. They get to draw it every 10 years, but we can do it within the 10-year period. [TRUE. This is DeMaio imitating what Newsom says in video.] Again, bogus, illegal, unethical. Here is what he had to say.I think there should be a national framework for independent redistricting, period, full stop. I mean, gerrymandering, and let's be fair, we've seen this weaponized by both parties for decades. Oh, look at him. Oh, it's so bad. It's been weaponized. There should be a national framework, but I'm going to do it anyway. Good God, this guy is an absolute hypocrite.These guys, this is a whole other level of weaponization coming from the right. What Trump did today is the ultimate tell. They feel they're on the ropes. They feel they're behind. They feel they're vulnerable with the big, beautiful bill. They feel like the momentum is shifting away from them, and it's Speaker Jeffries, it's not Speaker Johnson. On that basis, they got to rig the game. You got to change the game because you can't win by the existing rules. He's calling it rigging. I wouldn't disagree, but he's about to say, and that's why I'm going to do it too. (8:23 - 10:20) At least you're being honest about it. You're describing exactly what you're about to propose as rigging, unethical, illegitimate, offensive. But I'm going to do it anyway.He goes in and talks to these guys that should be focused on flood preparedness, should be focused on restoring NOAA and the weather investments that they need to make and the resiliency efforts to talk about getting FEMA back on track and how little accountability with Kristi Noem and some of those early decisions that were made or not made. Instead, they're using that special session to weaponize for the next election. That should scare the hell out of everybody because these guys are playing by a different set of rules. From my perspective- Here it comes. He called it illegitimate, weaponize. Now, what does he propose? He proposes to weaponize as well.From my perspective, if we're going to play fair in a world that is wholly unfair, we may have the higher moral ground, but the ground is shifting from underneath us. I think we have to wake up to that reality. I'm talking to members of my legislature. Whatever our alternatives, we can do a special session. I can call for one today. He's going to call for a special session of the legislature. He's talking to legislators about, oh, how do we rig the lines?We chose to. We can then put something on the ballot and I could call a special election. We could change- What he's saying is he would have to call an election to amend the constitution before 2026. We'd have to have a special election sometime, I don't know, given the timeline of special elections, December or January. Then if voters approve it, it would take effect in February. The filing for the June primary is in March, but you have to pull your papers starting in January. (10:20 - 10:57) I mean, all of this stuff deprives candidates of the opportunity to actually know what districts are going to be running in and to actually follow state election law. This is going to be a complete mess, but they don't care. The first thing is, if the constitution has to be amended, we can quickly do that. Sit together, rush it, sloppy, sloppy, deprive candidates of due process, deprive these communities of knowing who's going to be running for what office, and just cram it through. Again, the timeline is awfully tight, but again, might makes right. The one thing is, do a constitutional amendment. (10:57 - 11:08) The other thing he's about to expose is, well, we're just going to ignore the constitution, we're just going to pass a law.The constitution with the consent of the voters, and I think we would win that. I think people understand what's at stake in California. (11:08 - 11:36)I think we'd come out in record numbers. I think it would be extraordinary success. That's a clean way of doing it. It'd be a very short window because you've got to come back with the maps and you've got to change all this and prepare for the ballots that are around the corner next year. What's wrong with his hands?Or you can look at other avenues, which we are exploring, which are pathways with the legislature to do urgency clauses with two-thirds of the people. Pathways with the legislature to do a two-thirds vote without a vote of the people. (11:37 - 12:23) Oh, pathways. Instead of calling it a scheme, a plot, he calls it a pathway. It is a pathway. Oh, it's a scheme. It's a plot. To simply ignore the constitution and just say with a two-thirds vote of the legislature, because Democrats have a super majority, we get to change the lines within the 10-year period. That's what he's suggesting.There's a legislature in both of our houses to move forward with legislative redistricting in between the constitutional construct, which is every census the Independent Redistricting Commission does a new map, but it's silent about what happens in between. And because if it doesn't say I can't do it, I can obviously do it. (12:24 - 16:10) No. [FALSE. There is an entire line of appellate and supreme court cases that have held the Legislature has plenary legislative power. The courts have thus held that the Legislature can do anything it wants unless the constitution expressly prohibits it.] Here's the thing. First and foremost, the plain English of the constitutional amendment says that only the Redistricting Commission can do it. [FALSE. Proposition 20, the current law, does not use the word "only." The commissions' authority to draw maps exists for 7-1/2 months during each year ending in 1 and expires on August 15 of that year.] But secondly, there's already been a Supreme Court case from 1983 on this issue. It's the legislature versus Deukmejian. [CITE: Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d. 658. This case only addresses the language of Proposition 6 (1980), not the language of Proposition 20 (2010).] In that, the Supreme Court was considering a challenge between the legislature and the governor at the time about who gets to draw the maps and can you do it within a 10-year period? [FALSE. He didn't read it. The case was about a voter-initiative to override the second set of maps (Plan 2) adopted by the Legislature under Proposition 6 (1980).] Can you do it midpoint? And the California Supreme Court said, quote, 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 21 prohibits the adoption of a second redistricting plan by either the legislature or by initiative, by initiative, citizens initiative. [FALSE. The only issue before the court was the voter initiative, therefore, "either by the Legislature" is what's called dicta. It's also internally contradictory because the Legislature had already adopted two plans based on the 1980 census. "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." p. 680] So that would prohibit a redistricting plan within the 10-year period. [FALSE. There is no prohibition. In other words, there is no language in either the United States or California constitutions that prohibit the Legislature from redistricting congressional districts more than once in a decennial. In fact, the cited case was about an initiative to override the second (the first was overturned by voter a referendum) redistricting plan following the 1980 census.] Now, Newsom and the Democrats have stacked the California Supreme Court, so they may get any ruling that they possibly want from them. We've seen that in the past, because those chief justices, the justices of the California Supreme Court are, well, they're unethical, they're criminal, corrupt. They take things off the ballot all the time. Sounds like we probably should recall some of them from office, but it's possible they get different decision, but they would be flying in the face of case law. Yeah, all of this then would be put before the voters in one way or another. [FALSE. There is no language in the constitution that requires redistricting maps to be approved by the voters.] And I think that when you go too partisan, that voters don't like it, that they feel like it's fundamentally unfair. And if the Democrats want to go that desperate route, well, you can't stop them, but you can beat them. That's where Reform California has to organize and prepare. Now, what I say we have to do is get voter ID on the ballot. [Initiative 25-0007 does not address redistricting. Redistricting would occur before 25-0007 could conceivably qualify for the ballot.] I'll talk about that in just a moment. But before I get there, let me tell you how the current maps line up. I'm just going to look at the congressional districts. Here is the overall map that you can see for the state of California. We have 52 districts. And I don't like this map, but it's the current one we have. I think that the redistricting commission had been infiltrated by the Democrats. They successfully infiltrated it and put together a map that wasn't really a community of interest map, but they packed in a lot of Latinos into districts. What I realize is that Latinos are shifting to Republicans faster than any demographics. So even though they adopted a partisan map, I said at the time, well, this is not a fair map. I think Democrats are going to live to regret this map, and we're going to start picking up seats because of the Latino districts that you've created. And sure enough, that's what exactly has been happening. Latino districts have been flipping and are far more competitive than anyone imagined just two years ago, four years ago. So what are the seats that Democrats are trying to flip? They need three seats to flip majority. Right now, 220 for Republicans, 215 for Democrats. The first seat they're going to try to flip is Kevin Kiley's seat. It's R plus two. They could easily take about six or seven percentage points of Republicans out of the district by changing the map. What could they do? They could go to a neighboring district and put some Republicans in that district while putting more Democrats in Kiley's district without too much trouble. I mean, take a look at some of these numbers. (16:11 - 16:42) You've got plus 17. So some of those districts, even plus eight, you can take two or three points off of this and still, and this district is near Kiley. This other district coming up is also near Kiley, the 13th district. Well, the ninth is, that's competitive. The 13th is competitive. But each of these districts, you could actually see Kiley's district become more competitive. (16:42 - 16:52) They also may want to firm up certain districts like this one, the ninth, which is only D plus one. They currently hold that seat. They could firm up Adam Gray's seat, which is R plus one. (16:54 - 17:20) And so each of these districts, that's what they're going to be looking at, are the ones that are R plus one, and then they're going to go to a district that's an R, a D plus 20 or 26 or 21 and take some Democrats from there and mix them up. David Valadao, R plus one, they want to go after that seat. So it's Kiley, Valadao. They want those two seats. They want to firm up other seats. They could easily go after Young Kim and Ken Calvert. (17:20 - 17:35) Those are four seats that they could flip and they could firm up some of the other seats that they have. You could actually stretch this district, these districts, and go after five or six congressional seats that Republicans currently hold. That's how bad redistricting can get. (17:36 - 18:57) Our response is not manipulation. It's fairness. What could be more fair than the California Voter ID Initiative? Number one, citizenship verification. [FALSE. Initiative 25-0007 neither mandates or implements citizen verification.] Number two, an identification every time you cast a ballot. [FALSE. Initiative 25-0007 does not implement voter identification.] This constitutional amendment has been filed this week officially. It starts the clock to get a million signatures to put this on the ballot. And for that, we need your immediate help. This is our response to the corruption of Gavin Newsom's plan to try to rig elections by gerrymandering districts. We beat him with fairness. We beat him with common sense and integrity. Help us do that. Go to the web site, reformcalifornia.org. Sign up to have me, our team at Reform California, send you the petition for you to sign. You can sign up to request a mailing petition at voteridpetition.org. That will be our response to Gavin Newsom's illegitimate plot to try to rig elections in the state of California. Until next time, I'm Carl DeMaio, Chairman of Reform California. Thanks for watching, and I hope you enjoyed this episode. But before you click away, please subscribe to this channel and click that notification button so you get updated when we post new episodes. Plus, like this video and share it with your friends so that we can help spread our message across the state. Reform California with Carl DeMaio is paid for by Carl DeMaio for State Assembly.
# # #