Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project warns that the bill undermines fairness and competitiveness in California elections.
California’s controversial redistricting bill, AB 604, has received a failing grade from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which issued the plan an “F” for fairness, competitiveness, and geographic representation.
The Redistricting Report Card evaluates maps nationwide for partisan bias, compactness, and compliance with voting rights standards—and its analysis found that California’s proposal ranks among the worst in the country.
Introduced earlier this year in Sacramento, AB 604—dubbed the “Election Rigging Response Act” by opponents—shifts power over the redistricting process away from independent citizen oversight and into the hands of political insiders.
Sponsored by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), the legislation would alter the process for drawing legislative maps following the decennial census, a task that has historically been handled by California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission.
According to Princeton’s evaluation, the bill’s proposed maps “significantly advantage Democrats while reducing competition across nearly all congressional districts.” The watchdog gave the plan an “F” in partisan fairness and competitiveness, warning that AB 604 would lock in one-party dominance at the expense of voter choice.
Critics argue that the failing grade confirms longstanding fears that Sacramento Democrats are using AB 604 to entrench power.
“This bill is nothing more than a brazen attempt to undo the voter-approved reforms that made California elections more accountable,” said Assemblymember Kate Sanchez (R–Rancho Santa Margarita), who has been outspoken against the measure. “Princeton’s grade just proves what we’ve been saying all along — AB 604 is a scam on the voters.”
Supporters of the bill, however, claim it would streamline the redistricting process and protect against what they call “partisan manipulation” of maps.
“This bill will protect Californians’ interests in the national democratic process…” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D–Hollister), in his official statement to the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee.
However, a nonpartisan assessment from Princeton suggests the opposite: that the legislation undermines the very transparency and independence that California voters demanded when they created the citizens’ commission through Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010).
The bill has advanced through committee hearings, but the failing report card may embolden opposition as it heads toward a floor vote. With California already facing widespread criticism over one-party rule, the “F” from Princeton adds new weight to arguments that AB 604 is less about reform—and more about rigging the rules.
