Copyright Santa Clarita Valley Signal
Everyone on the panel agreed on one thing: California’s nonpartisan committee for drawing district lines represents the best system out there for determining the state’s congressional districts. However, where the panel disagreed during Tuesday’s Proposition 50 debate hosted by College of the Canyons: Whether the Nov. 4 ballot measure should be viewed by the Santa Clarita Valley as a way to counteract Republican attempts to gerrymander in other states, as supporters claim, or a way to dilute the SCV’s influence in Congress by carving it into three disparate districts, which was one of the arguments against it. The issue of redistricting has drawn up partisan lines across the county, as the California Legislature approved a ballot measure that would redraw district lines to create four new seats with majority Democratic Party voters, as an answer to a similar move in Texas that created additional Republican seats. If approved by voters, the new maps would divide the SCV into three separate congressional districts, replacing the one district that covers the valley now. The eastern portions of the 27th District that include Acton and Agua Dulce would be placed in the 30th District, which has a larger Democratic voter registration edge than the SCV; and some western pockets, including Castaic, would be added to Conejo Valley communities in the 26th District. With several other states now following suit in redistricting attempts, Jack Teoli, vice president of the COC political science club, said he has genuine concern for what will happen to the country if Proposition 50 doesn’t pass. Teoli was joined in the support side by Andrew Taban, who founded an organization for SCV Democrats and represents L.A. County Assessor Jeffrey Prang. “We’re not happy that we voted for Prop. 50,” Teoli said, adding in his opening remarks that he was an advocate for “free and fair elections.” He said President Donald Trump “has been relatively unpopular with very unpopular policies,” adding he has cut health care, raised the cost of living with tariffs, given tax breaks to the wealthy and authorized immigration operations that Teoli likened to kidnappings. “And so, for me, at least, it raises the question: What’s going to happen if Donald Trump holds onto the House and the Senate after 2026?” he said. Jonathan Hatami, a recent candidate for district attorney and a COC alumnus, was one of two making the case for a “no” vote on Proposition 50. Hatami said Teoli was right in that grocery prices, gas prices and immigration are all significant problems that Americans are facing, and he also said they were problems before Trump took office and that a yes vote on Proposition 50 would not solve any of the issues he mentioned. “And you can’t blame every single problem that we have in this country, and in the nation, on Donald Trump — you just can’t do that,” he said. “We had a lot of these problems before he became president, we’re going to have a lot of these problems after he leaves as president.” He argued that political gerrymandering is bad whether it’s happening in Texas, Florida, Missouri or California. But solving a problem with more problems was not a good solution, he said. Hatami said splitting the SCV into three districts would be taking away power from the people and giving it to the politicians. He asked the supporters of Proposition 50 to make their argument without invoking the president’s name. “I’m letting you know that as a JFK moderate Democrat, partisan gerrymandering is bad,” he said, adding politicians who stay in power too long become lazy because they know their district is secure. “A lot of people are mad at the president — and a lot of people like the president,” Hatami said. “This has nothing to do with the president. This is Santa Clarita, our community.” Calvin Garringan, president of COC’s political science club and also an opponent of Proposition 50, also argued California’s representation in the Legislature is already disproportionately Democratic compared to how many Republican voters there are. This would make the problem worse, he said. He also considered himself a “Santa Clarita boy,” and he didn’t like the prospects of having his representation lumped together with Santa Barbara and those communities in the new maps. Taban said that none of the local leadership mentioned outside of Congress, such as school boards, water boards or state officials, would change under the new districts. He also said that voters would be mandated to look at the districts again under the proposition, which notes the Census would return districting back to the commission in 2030 with the next Census results. The arguments Tuesday also brought out some of the fundamental differences in perspective on government, in terms of how to look at the potential new SCV maps. “I’m not a big fan of our politicians,” said Hatami, a past candidate for the nonpartisan offices of City Council and district attorney. “Now we’re going to have three instead of one, so we’re going to have more politicians instead of less. And that just sounds horrible,” Hatami said. “To me, it sounds like more say,” Teoli replied. “Every individual still has one representative whose job it is to represent you,” Taban said. “If it doesn’t benefit you, this is the beauty of California,” Teoli added. “You get to vote no, you get the option — unlike other states.”
