Shasta politicians debate Prop. 50: Do the ends justify the means?

On the evening of October 9, Supervisor Matt Plummer and 2026 congressional candidate Rose Penelope Yee sat down at the KIXE PBS studio in Redding to have a debate. The topic was the contentious Proposition 50, which will be presented to California voters at the ballot box in just a few weeks. Yee, who also ran against Congressman Doug LaMalfa in 2024, debated in favor of 50 while Plummer opposed. 

Both Yee and Plummer agreed that gerrymandering — or the practice of redrawing representational lines for political outcomes —  is wrong and that the principles of democracy are sacred. They both lauded California’s nonpartisan and nonlegislative committee that currently draws congressional districts and which Proposition 50 would undermine for the next five years. What they disagreed on is the best strategy for how to preserve democracy. Yee framed the issue as being on a statewide, if not national, scale; while Plummer was hypervigilant about the primary importance of local representation. 

The Context: 

Earlier this summer, President Donald Trump pushed for Texas to gerrymander some of its congressional districts with the goal of adding five additional republic representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. The move would present more favorable odds that Republicans would be able to hold on to their majority in the house after the 2026 midterm election. Redistricting typically coincides with the national census every 10 years, and a mid-decade redistricting is unusual. But the composition of Congress is of particular resonance right now, as the government shutdown has reached its tenth day.

Texas’ subsequent redistricting was met with widespread condemnation as a blatant power grab, and is being challenged in court. Though the legislators who redrew Texas map were open about their intentions to give Republican candidates more of an advantage, they denied that race was a factor in their decisions, despite the fact they focused on districts where Black and Latino voters make up the collective majority. In response, the NAACP also sued the state of Texas, accusing the state legislature of racially–motivated gerrymandering. 

Proposition 50, which Governor Gavin Newsom’s office has named the “Election Rigging Response Act,” is the state of California’s response to the gerrymandering in Texas. A special election on Nov. 4 will give state voters the decision to allow California to temporarily gerrymander the state’s conservative congressional districts, in a move Newsom hopes will turn them from red to blue ahead of the 2026 midterm election. 

A majority of Californians voting yes on 50 would enact redistricting in California until the next census in 2030. A vote no would keep the districts as is. 

The change would disproportionately affect Shasta and other far northern counties. If Proposition 50 is approved by popular vote, all of the counties in the North State will fall under new congressional districts. In the case of Shasta, the new map would lump it in with more highly urbanized and Democrat–dominated coastal areas such Marin, a strategy that could flip California’s District 1 from Republican-represented to Democrat. 

Political and Philosophical disagreements:  

At times, Yee and Plummer’s debate focused on partisan divides. But both also extrapolated on a more philosophical question: do the ends justify the means? 

Yee, taking the affirmative position on the proposition, seemed to argue yes. She disagreed with Plummer that the new maps will definitively work against the political interests of locals in Shasta County. As she shared her perspective that President Trump is implementing national policies that adversely affects California’s disenfranchised northern counties, she cited the Big Beautiful Bill’s forecasted impact on rural hospitals as an example. She also emphasized the key differences between the way that California is seeking to redistrict its maps – by popular vote – as opposed to Texas, in which legislators made the decision unilaterally.

“What we are now faced with is really extraordinary,” Yee said. “So what is at stake here is representation for our whole nation. It’s for all of us Americans.” She described the stakes as the American political system being taken over by billionaire and corporate interests via undemocratic means. Rather than allow that to happen, Yee said, Californians should fight back by voting yes to Proposition 50. 

Plummer argued that no, the ends do not justify the means, insisting that gerrymandering should be rejected on principle. He anchored his analysis on the idea that the proposition will further disempower the political representation of conservative and rural Californians within a system that is already skewed against them. Despite the fact that 38% of Californians statewide voted for Trump, he said, only 17% of the state’s current congressional representatives are Republicans. With the redistricting, that percentage would likely drop to 8%.

Articulating that he did not support what happened in Texas, Plummer said, “we don’t win by abandoning our principles as soon as there’s a threat to them. We win by sticking to them in the midst of that and demonstrating a better way to lead.” He forecasted that Newsom’s willingness to “meet fire with fire” when it comes to gerrymandering would encourage other states to redraw their own congressional borders.

“It’s setting a precedent that whenever politicians want to change the balance or aren’t happy with what’s happening in other places, that they can go and just change things to fit and match their rule.” 

Yee and Plummer also debated how, if Prop. 50 passes, rural versus urban needs will be met.

Yee disagreed with Plummer’s opinion that if Proposition 50 passes, the next congressional candidate representing Shasta will inevitably be from a more urbanized part of the new district. “It’s a fallacy to think that,” she said, adding that in 2026 she believes that a range of candidates from the rural counties of Shasta, Siskiyou, and Modoc could fairly compete with those from the more densely populated Marin. 

Plummer rebutted that claim by citing the numbers. Marin and Sonoma have 278,665 registered Democrats, a higher number than the total of 172,258 registered Republicans combined in the counties that would become  part of the new District 1 under Prop. 50. Based on that data, Plummer said a candidate who is familiar with Bay Area voters and donors will stand a better chance at winning the popular vote in a newly drawn district, meaning rural voters’ interests are less likely to be represented.

“It doesn’t matter what Texas is doing, we can’t control that,” Plummer said. “What we can control is our own destiny… whether Shasta County wants to have a representative… who knows what it’s like to live in Northern California and can represent those interests in DC.” 

Watch the full debate here.

---

Do you have information or a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.