California’s Impossible Choice: Are We Taking a Step Back on Equity to Save Democracy?
By: Jess Ayden Li, Co-Founder and Principal Consultant
Illustration of four people standing at a fork in the road, looking conflicted. In the center, a signpost has three arrows: the top arrow reads “Proposition 50,” the left arrow reads “Equity Process,” and the right arrow reads “Strategic Compromise.” The muted beige background emphasizes the choice between the two paths.
When fighting for justice means making compromises we hate. A tough conversation about power, process, and who gets sacrificed in the name of politics. As someone who lives in California and has worked in both houses of Congress for Democratic politicians, I know firsthand how much these seats matter — not as abstract numbers, but as the difference between communities having a voice or being silenced.
What do you do when playing by the rules means your opponents win by breaking them? California had one of the most equitable redistricting processes in the country. It was transparent and community-centered. The Commission worked to make sure that communities could have real power in drawing their own districts. Now, Proposition 50 is asking us to take a step back from that progress — indeed, to temporarily set aside the very process Californians fought so hard to create. And the worst part? We might actually have to do it. Not because we’re abandoning our values, but because refusing to act strategically now could cost us everything we’ve been trying to protect nationwide.
As diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) practitioners, we’re used to being forced to make impossible choices or settle for less than the ideal. There have been times when protecting equity in one area meant sacrificing it in another. California’s Prop 50 puts us in exactly that position — and we need to honestly reflect on why supporting it (however reluctantly) might be necessary in the bigger fight for liberation.
What We Built: A Model Worth Protecting
Let’s start by acknowledging what California achieved with its Citizens Redistricting Commission, because it matters deeply — and because it’s exactly what we’re being asked to temporarily set aside. Since 2011, California’s independent commission has done something revolutionary: it put communities at the center of redistricting instead of politicians. Global Majority/Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) could finally show up to public hearings and say “Don’t split our neighborhood” or “Keep our cultural district together” — and actually be heard.
This wasn’t just about prettier maps. It was about fundamentally shifting power toward the communities that had been carved up and silenced for decades. The commission’s transparent process, explicit protection for communities of color under the Voting Rights Act, and requirement for community input created something we rarely see: a system where equity wasn’t an afterthought.
The results speak for themselves. The commission preserved and strengthened districts where communities of color hold electoral power. They kept communities of interest together instead of splitting them apart for political convenience. They created a process where community voices actually mattered.
As a result, Global Majority/BIPOC communities were more equitably represented. Let me be clear — Prop 50 does NOT take away representation from these communities. But the proposition does temporarily amend the process that we fought so hard to create, which allowed us fairer representation in the first place.
The Brutal Reality: What Happens When Others Won’t Play Fair
Here’s the part that keeps those of us in social justice work up at night: What do you do when you’re committed to equitable processes, but your opponents have abandoned equity entirely?
Republican-controlled states aren’t just gerrymandering — they’re weaponizing redistricting to systematically eliminate Democratic representation and silence communities of color. Texas Republicans are trying to eliminate five Democratic seats through extreme gerrymandering. Florida wiped out districts that had elected Black representatives for decades. Missouri, Ohio, and others have ignored their own voters’ demands for fair maps. This isn’t normal political competition. This is a coordinated assault on democratic representation itself, specifically targeting the voices of marginalized communities. And it’s working.
As people who work in equity spaces, we recognize this pattern. It’s the same dynamic we see when one organization in a coalition abandons collaborative decision-making to grab power, forcing everyone else to either respond in kind or get steamrolled. It’s the abuser who breaks the rules and then points to everyone else’s reaction as proof they’re just as bad.
The Brutal Reality: What Happens When Others Won’t Play Fair
Here’s the part that keeps those of us in social justice work up at night: What do you do when you’re committed to equitable processes, but your opponents have abandoned equity entirely?
Republican-controlled states aren’t just gerrymandering — they’re weaponizing redistricting to systematically eliminate Democratic representation and silence communities of color. Texas Republicans are trying to eliminate five Democratic seats through extreme gerrymandering. Florida wiped out districts that had elected Black representatives for decades. Missouri, Ohio, and others have ignored their own voters’ demands for fair maps. This isn’t normal political competition. This is a coordinated assault on democratic representation itself, specifically targeting the voices of marginalized communities. And it’s working.
As people who work in equity spaces, we recognize this pattern. It’s the same dynamic we see when one organization in a coalition abandons collaborative decision-making to grab power, forcing everyone else to either respond in kind or get steamrolled. It’s the abuser who breaks the rules and then points to everyone else’s reaction as proof they’re just as bad.
The Equity Calculation We Don’t Want to Make
This is where Proposition 50 forces us into a calculation that feels wrong but might be necessary: sacrificing California’s model of community-centered redistricting to prevent a much larger assault on representation nationwide.
Five additional Democratic seats could determine whether Congress protects voting rights — or dismantles them. That’s the scale of what’s at stake. Supporters promise new maps will still comply with the Voting Rights Act and maintain communities of color in power, but we know it won’t be the same as what the Commission achieved.
Why We Might Be Reluctant About Prop 50 (And Why We Have To Vote Yes Anyway)
As DEIB practitioners, everything about this situation should feel wrong to us:
We’re abandoning transparent, community-centered processes for closed-door political dealing.
We’re asking communities that fought for fair representation to trust politicians again.
We’re using the “greater good” argument that has historically been used to silence marginalized voices.
We’re temporarily becoming the thing we’ve fought against.
These aren’t small concerns or acceptable trade-offs. They represent a real step backward for equity in California, even if it’s temporary. But sometimes protecting equity requires strategic compromises that feel like betraying our values. Yet sometimes the choice isn’t between good and bad — it’s between bad and catastrophic.
What We’re Really Choosing Between
The real choice isn’t just about California’s process. It’s between:
Keeping our model intact while opponents dismantle democracy nationwide.
Making a strategic compromise to preserve enough representation in Congress to protect voting rights and democratic norms for everyone.
Neither option is good. Both require sacrificing something important. But one sacrifices California’s process to protect communities everywhere, while the other sacrifices communities everywhere to protect California’s process.
Our Responsibility Moving Forward
Supporting Prop 50 doesn’t mean abandoning equity. It means protecting it on a bigger scale — even if it hurts at home. The measure sunsets in 2030, when the independent commission resumes its work. That doesn’t erase the loss, but it makes clear this is a pause, not a permanent reversal.
If we’re going to support Prop 50, we have responsibilities:
Name what we’re sacrificing. Don’t pretend this doesn’t temporarily cost communities in California. Don’t minimize the loss of transparent, community-centered processes. Be honest about the trade-offs — even if those trade-offs are temporary and don’t limit Global Majority/BIPOC representation right now.
Hold ourselves accountable. Make sure our politicians keep the promise to return to independent redistricting in 2030 (using the same process as we did last time so that Global Majority/BIPOC communities continue to be fairly represented in CA). Fight for community input even within the legislative process. Ensure that compliance with the Voting Rights Act means real protection for Global Majority/BIPOC individuals.
Keep building toward better. Don’t let this compromise become the new normal. Maintain our vision of community-centered power, even while making strategic concessions.
Moving Forward Together
As DEIB practitioners, we know that building equitable systems is long-term work that requires both vision and strategy. Sometimes that means making compromises that hurt. Sometimes it means choosing between bad options instead of good ones. Prop 50 forces exactly that kind of choice. Supporting it means acknowledging that we’re temporarily sacrificing something important — California’s model of community-centered redistricting — to protect something even more important: the possibility of fair representation for Global Majority/Black, Indigenous, and Communities of Color around the country.
It’s not the choice we wanted to make. But it’s the choice we need to make. And if we make it, we do so with full awareness of what it costs, full commitment to minimizing that cost, and full determination to ensure we never have to make it again.
Real equity work requires navigating impossible choices while keeping our eyes on both immediate harm and long-term liberation. Sometimes that means strategic compromises that break our hearts but protect our communities.