Princeton Gerrymandering Project gives California’s AB 604 a grade ‘F’ rating
The Princeton Gerrymandering Project warns that the bill dismantles independent map-drawing and locks in partisan advantage.
Assemblyman Tangipa says the measure defies voter-approved reforms and entrenches one-party rule in Sacramento.
California’s controversial redistricting proposal, A.B. 604, has received a failing grade from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which warned that the plan undermines fairness and competitiveness in state elections.
The project’s Redistricting Report Card rated the measure an “F” in partisan fairness, geographic representation, and competitiveness, concluding that it would “significantly advantage Democrats while reducing competition across nearly all congressional districts.”
The bill, authored by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, would shift power away from California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission—a body voters created through Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010) to allegedly keep politics out of map-drawing. Critics argue that the failing report card indicates the legislation would reverse those reforms and solidify one-party dominance in Sacramento.
Assemblyman David Tangipa told Campus Reform that the failing grade validates Republican concerns. “Voters established and defended independent redistricting twice,” Tangipa said, calling the proposal “a slap in the face to everyone who voted to take politics out of map drawing.”
Tangipa also pointed out broader frustrations with California’s governance, noting that the state “can’t lower the cost of living” and continues to lead the nation in high utility rates, housing costs, and crime. He argued that expanding partisan control of redistricting would only reward the same policies that have failed residents.
Supporters of the bill argue A.B. 604 would safeguard elections by streamlining redistricting.
“We believe in accountability,” Rivas said in an August press release. “We believe in elections decided by voters, not bullies. We’re putting the maps in front of the people first, and empowering voters to have the final say.”
But Princeton’s analysis challenges this argument. The watchdog’s F rating warns how the redistricting measure would erase competitive districts and entrench partisan advantage for the next decade.
As A.B. 604 advances through the legislature, the failing grade could energize the bill’s critics and reignite debate over whether California is abandoning the intended independent model voters twice approved.
