The San Mateo County Charter Review Committee has recommended amending the County Charter to establish an independent redistricting commission for drawing Board of Supervisors district maps.
If approved by the Board of Supervisors, this landmark change will go before voters in the November 2026 election.
The League of Women Voters supports fair, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting and favors independent commissions to help ensure that maps are drawn without political bias.
San Mateo County supervisor district lines determine how communities are represented in county government and who has a voice in local decisions. Those decisions include land use, transportation, public health, housing, public safety and budgets that affect residents throughout the county. An independent redistricting commission would draw these maps using criteria defined by California law and without changes from the Board of Supervisors — helping reduce conflicts of interest and increase public trust.
Recent county experience underscores why this reform matters. In 2021, San Mateo County used an advisory commission to review public input and propose district maps. However, the Board of Supervisors retained final authority and ultimately adopted a different map, making only relatively minor changes to the prior boundaries. As a result, district lines have functionally remained in place for two decades despite population shifts and changing communities.
Recommended for you
As reflected in the Charter Review Committee’s recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the current process — where final authority rests with the Board of Supervisors — raises concerns about inherent conflicts of interest, even when advisory bodies and public input are involved. Independent redistricting commissions are widely recognized as best practice because they help ensure that district lines are drawn on objective criteria rather than political considerations. Eight counties in California will have independent redistricting committees for 2031 (following the 2030 Federal Census).
The league’s national position supports vesting redistricting authority in an independent redistricting commission that reflects community diversity and operates through an open, transparent process with meaningful public participation. Redistricting should ensure equal population, protect minority representation, preserve communities of interest and explicitly reject partisan advantage and incumbent protection.
As a charter county, San Mateo County has the authority to place this important structural reform on the ballot this fall. Establishing an IRC under the charter would align the county with emerging best practices, strengthen public confidence in the redistricting process, and ensure that future district maps reflect the county’s evolving communities. When residents can see how decisions are made and trust that no one is drawing lines for political advantage, confidence in local government grows.
San Mateo County residents can attend the Board of Supervisors meeting May 5 and speak during public comment when the proposal is considered.
Tina Doede is the president of the League of Women Voters of North & Central San Mateo County. Lucia Tedesco is the president of the League of Women Voters of South San Mateo County.
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Doede and Ms. Tedesco, proposing an independent redistricting commission for BoS district maps. But in this day and age, is there truly such a thing as a nonpartisan organization? We’ve seen politics and especially those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome bring emotions and partisanship to the fore. And who is paying for this independent commission?
Perhaps the better option is to use AI to generate district maps. If redistricting is about population, then let’s allow AI to split up the county by population. Instead of ending up with district maps looking like animals, we’ll have recognizable geometric shapes. BTW, doesn’t the current set of maps have an elephant in it? Doesn’t it seem most district maps have some sort of elephant in it?
Dear Tina and Lucia - it seems that we went through this before. One of the issues with the last commission was that there were prerequisites for appointment. Those restrictions, as I saw it, were biased and produced a milky-toast, if not woke, commission that anticipated approval by the Board of Supervisors. The chief objective appeared to be mollifying the endless slew of the under-represented demographic without consideration for those who pay for our government's bills. I am in agreement with your proposal and would like to hear your recommendations for commissioner eligibility.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Doede and Ms. Tedesco, proposing an independent redistricting commission for BoS district maps. But in this day and age, is there truly such a thing as a nonpartisan organization? We’ve seen politics and especially those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome bring emotions and partisanship to the fore. And who is paying for this independent commission?
Perhaps the better option is to use AI to generate district maps. If redistricting is about population, then let’s allow AI to split up the county by population. Instead of ending up with district maps looking like animals, we’ll have recognizable geometric shapes. BTW, doesn’t the current set of maps have an elephant in it? Doesn’t it seem most district maps have some sort of elephant in it?
Dear Tina and Lucia - it seems that we went through this before. One of the issues with the last commission was that there were prerequisites for appointment. Those restrictions, as I saw it, were biased and produced a milky-toast, if not woke, commission that anticipated approval by the Board of Supervisors. The chief objective appeared to be mollifying the endless slew of the under-represented demographic without consideration for those who pay for our government's bills. I am in agreement with your proposal and would like to hear your recommendations for commissioner eligibility.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.