Sacramento residents oppose gerrymandering but support California redistricting | Opinion

Why I support redistricting

“‘Gavinmander’: Tit-for-tat gerrymandering isn’t a shortcut to victory | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 17)

I believe that racial and partisan gerrymandering is immoral and legally wrong. In normal times, I believe in good governance, competing on a level playing field electorally, where everybody respects the rules and the referees call balls and strikes. That is not where we are right now.

I support Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting measure if for no other reason than to make sure that democracy can — at the very least — fight to live another day.

Donald Leeper

Sacramento

California must respond

“‘Gavinmander’: Tit-for-tat gerrymandering isn’t a shortcut to victory | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 17)

Texas Republicans are using gerrymandering to redistrict our nation toward minority rule. They are doing this mid-decade and without any new census data. Why? Their national leader — a man whose authoritarian proclivities are well-documented — has ordered them to do so.

A recent op-ed, authored by two individuals from the California Constitution Center, asserts that Californians should not respond — rather, we should take the high road and adhere to the principles of “good government” that we have enshrined in our Redistricting Commission.

We are effectively being asked to bring our “principles” to a gun fight — a fool’s errand.

Harry Gibbons

Sacramento

In defense of Matsui

“Doris Matsui is ducking her district when it needs a public leader | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 15)

The premise of The Bee Editorial Board’s recent assertion that Rep. Doris Matsui’s time in office should come to an end because she does not engage in the performative mob politics that dominate the day is absurd.

Matsui has delivered jobs, better roads and safety from floods. She is quiet, but not timid.

Bill Wong

Sacramento

Sacramento needs thoughtful planning

“Sacramento formally opposes county-backed Natomas housing project. Is that common?” (sacbee.com, Aug. 14)

The city is right to oppose the Upper Westside sprawl project, which is planned for outside the designated urban growth boundaries. The reality of the climate crisis dictates that we need natural spaces to protect us from floods and sequester carbon. We don’t want to experience floods like those in Texas.

The plants and rich soil on riverbanks sink carbon, and carbon sinks mitigate climate change. Green space also soaks up extra water and recharges the water table. Paving over green spaces destroys our chances to regenerate soil.

Most of the proposed housing in this project is big homes on big lots — not low or even moderate-income housing. This project will not alleviate homelessness or the housing crisis. We need to protect green fields, farms and river banks. Increased danger of drought, fires and floods from climate change demands thoughtful planning.

Megan Elsea

Sacramento

Scientific progress stalled

“NIH budget cuts threaten the future of biomedical research - and the young scientists behind it,” (sacbee.com, July 7)

While caring for a newborn in the neonatal intensive care unit with a serious brain injury, I was reminded how much progress research has made possible. Just 20 years ago, these cases almost always led to lifelong disability or death. Today, thanks to decades of federally funded studies, we can offer therapeutic hypothermia, a treatment that reduces mortality and severe neurodevelopmental impairment.

That progress is now threatened. The suspension of grants for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation — including those critical to maternal and infant health — risks halting discoveries that save lives. Neonatal research has already brought us high-quality prenatal care through antenatal steroids for premature lungs, the prevention of Rh disease and maternal RSV vaccination.

Cutting funding stops lifesaving projects and undermines the training of young physicians and scientists. Protecting this investment means safeguarding the futures of our littlest Californians — and ensuring children’s health is never negotiable.

Trisha Mulamreddy

Los Angeles

This story was originally published August 24, 2025 at 6:00 AM.