Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which county district attorneys or state attorneys general publicly supported or opposed Proposition 50 in 2024?
Executive Summary
Proposition 50 attracted clear public opposition from a coordinated group of county district attorneys in October 2025: a joint letter signed by 30 California district attorneys declared opposition, specifically naming Jeff Reisig of Yolo County among the signatories and framing the measure as a threat to the voter-approved redistricting commission and a reinstatement of partisan gerrymandering [1]. At the same time, leading supporters listed on party and campaign materials included Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party’s endorsement roll, though those pro-Prop 50 materials do not list county district attorneys or state attorneys general among supporters [2] [3]. Several 2024–2025 news compilations and endorsement lists either omit prosecutor-level endorsements entirely or explicitly record the prosecutorial opposition, leaving a mixed public record that is clearer on organized DA opposition than on any AG-level statements [4] [1] [3].
1. Legal prosecutors publicly push back — a coordinated DA letter that changed the narrative
A Davis Vanguard report dated October 10, 2025 documents a public, coordinated opposition to Proposition 50 by thirty county district attorneys across California; that letter is the central primary-source evidence that prosecutorial offices organized against the measure, and it names specific signatories including Jeff Reisig of Yolo County [1]. The letter frames Proposition 50 as dismantling the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission and as a return to partisan-drawn maps, linking the DA opposition to concerns about democratic institutions and fair representation. The reporting treats the DAs as acting collectively rather than as isolated voices, which is significant because it converts multiple local law-enforcement leaders into a statewide political signal; that coalition is the strongest documented prosecutorial intervention for or against the ballot measure [1].
2. Pro-Prop 50 endorsements come from political leaders, not prosecutors
Campaign and party materials show high-profile political support for Proposition 50, with Governor Gavin Newsom listed among backers and the California Democratic Party publishing pro-Prop 50 endorsements and FAQs that include major political names [2] [3]. Those endorsement lists emphasize elected officials and party structures rather than county district attorneys or state attorneys general, and the official pro side’s public materials do not cite any AG or DA endorsements. This absence is noteworthy: organized political support was visible and public, but it did not include the state’s top prosecutors in the endorsements that campaign materials show [2] [3].
3. Earlier compilations recorded no prosecutor endorsements — a mixed record of reporting
A 2024 endorsements compilation and other informational pages published during the 2024 general election cycle list multiple endorsements for ballot measures yet do not mention any county district attorneys or attorneys general for Proposition 50, underscoring that prosecutorial positions were either not publicly recorded at that time or were not present on typical endorsement trackers [4]. That omission creates an interpretive gap: either prosecutors were not engaged at the outset or their engagement crystallized later through organized actions like the October 2025 DA letter. The timeline matters because it shows the prosecutorial opposition emerged as a coordinated message in late 2025 rather than being a listed endorsement early in the campaign period [4] [1].
4. Local impacts and political stakes shaped prosecutor involvement and public messaging
Coverage of the proposed map changes highlights tangible local consequences — for example, reporting on San Diego’s redrawn districts warns that rural and coastal areas could be joined in ways that would alter partisan balances — and these concrete map effects help explain why district attorneys might engage publicly, since redistricting reshapes electoral constituencies and political power at the county level [5]. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office is cited in broader reporting about prosecutorial influence in California, which contextualizes why DA endorsements or oppositions matter politically and why their collective voice attracts media attention; local map shifts are the practical driver behind prosecutorial concern, not abstract theory [6] [5].
5. What’s clear, what’s missing, and how to interpret the record
What is clear from the assembled reporting is that a substantial and explicit prosecutorial coalition opposed Proposition 50 via a signed letter in October 2025, while mainstream pro-Prop 50 materials list political leaders and party endorsements but not DAs or state attorneys general [1] [2] [3]. What remains less clear are any public, comparable statements of support from state attorneys general or countervailing prosecutor endorsements; several endorsement trackers from 2024 and 2025 include no prosecutorial backers, suggesting absence of support at that level or an underreporting of such statements [4] [2]. Readers should note the possible agendas: district attorneys may emphasize institutional fairness and anti-gerrymandering frames, while political supporters emphasize governance and partisan advantage; both frames appear in the public record and both are documented by the sources cited above [1] [2] [3].