“We urge voters, local leaders, and lawmakers to reject this measure,” reads a joint letter signed by nearly forty county sheriffs.
As the November 4th special election approaches, Californians are being asked to weigh in on Proposition 50—dubbed the Election Rigging Response Act by its architects. Ballots have already arrived in mailboxes statewide, asking voters whether to approve a proposal backed by Democratic lawmakers that would bypass the state’s independent redistricting process and allow the current Legislature to draw new congressional maps for the next three election cycles: 2026, 2028, and 2030.
While lawmakers remain divided over Proposition 50—effectively entirely on party lines—a growing number of Southern California sheriffs are voicing serious concerns of their own. More than three dozen sheriffs from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties have spoken out, warning that the measure poses significant risks to public trust and fair representation.
In a joint letter signed by 37 county sheriffs, the group emphasized that “our system of government depends upon public trust—trust built through transparency, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law.” The letter goes on to warn that “trust is undermined when public officials take actions designed to enhance their own power at the expense of the people’s will.”
Signed by Orange County Sheriff Dan Barnes, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, and San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus, the letter also cites past legislation that eroded public trust, such as AB 759—which changed the terms of sheriffs and district attorneys—and AB 868—which sought to eliminate long-standing nonpartisan safeguards.
The aforementioned bills were championed by Democrats, both of whom are supportive of Prop 50 and Newsom’s expressed desire to restructure the maps to target and hurt Republican incumbents.
“These bills are part of a troubling pattern: Sacramento politicians cherry-picking offices, moving elections, and eroding local control to engineer different political outcomes. This type of manipulation disenfranchises voters and politicizes institutions that demand neutrality,” the letter reads.
The bottom line is that these Southern California county sheriffs do not want to see Sacramento politicians undermining the trust of the public, and failing to listen to the voters in their state.
“California also has a long history of underfunding court services contracts, particularly in the state’s largest counties,” the sheriffs wrote. “Local sheriff’s offices in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino must each supplement courthouse security by tens of millions of dollars annually—costs that should be covered by the state. Instead, local taxpayers are forced to shoulder the burden of keeping judges and courts safe.”
On the subject of taxpayer burdens, Prop 50 is projected to cost a whopping $282 million, with counties shouldering $251 million of that expense. The sheriffs also argue that the special election is diverting hundreds of millions of dollars away from essential public services. Somewhat similarly, Prop 36—approved by voters last year to strengthen penalties for theft and drug crimes and expand access to substance abuse treatment—remains only partially funded. Republican lawmakers argue this is insufficient.
If Prop 50 passes, Democrat lawmakers will undoubtedly proceed with the new maps and argue that such was the will of California voters. But, again, California voters also approved Prop 36, and the Democrat supermajority has failed to deliver on its provisions. The supermajority is, evidently, selective about when the will of voters is sacrosanct and when it can be effectively disregarded.
“Instead of fixing this broken system, Sacramento is spending hundreds of millions on a special election designed to consolidate political power,” the letter states. “Forsaking public services and shifting state obligations onto counties to pursue partisan goals is an abdication of responsibility.”
The sheriffs conclude with a call to action: “We urge voters, local leaders, and lawmakers to reject this measure—and to remain vigilant against Sacramento’s ongoing efforts to politicize nonpartisan offices, undermine local control, and put partisan power above the public’s will.”
Add Comment