Supporters of Proposition 50 wave American flags during public comment at the Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday in Bakersfield.

The Kern County Board of Supervisors heard more than an hour of public comment from residents, community leaders, and retired judges on Tuesday, advocating for the board to rescind its earlier vote opposing Proposition 50. However, the supervisors ultimately stood by their decision.

The measure would temporarily change how California redraws its congressional district maps, shifting the process from an independent citizens commission to one overseen by state lawmakers.

The board first discussed the measure on Sept. 9 and formally voted to oppose it earlier last month. 

All supervisors voted in opposition except for District 5 Supervisor and Board Chair Leticia Perez.

During Tuesday’s meeting, retired Kern County Superior Court Judge Robert S. Tafoya, who asked the board to revisit the vote, said the board’s 4-1 decision was inappropriate for a nonpartisan body.

“You are all required to be nonpartisan office holders,” Tafoya told supervisors. “This board should not have engaged in this highly political issue. Let the voters decide for themselves.”

Other speakers echoed Tafoya’s call for neutrality. Civil rights leader Dolores Huerta asked the board to “rescind your vote against Proposition 50,” saying the decision undermined democracy.

“Millions of people have given their lives to save democracy,” Huerta said. “You took an oath to the Constitution, not to a political party.”

Attorney H.A. Sala, a longtime criminal defense lawyer in Kern County, compared the board’s resolution to a judge instructing a jury how to vote.

“By taking a position, you put your finger on the scale,” Sala said. “That’s not your role.”

Charles Collins, a 72-year-old retired attorney who practiced law for 35 years, also spoke in support of revisiting the vote.

“I feel like at this time in our history, we are changing,” Collins said. “The bonds that hold us together as a people and a nation they’re fraying.”

Collins said Proposition 50 stemmed from an effort to restore fairness after partisan redistricting in Texas and called it “a matter of balance, not change.”

Dr. Thomas Martinez, professor emeritus at California State University, Bakersfield, said the board’s action reflected a dangerous shift in democratic norms.

“These are not normal times,” Martinez said. “It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, or independent; being honest about it, you must admit that the White House politics are out of control. The normal standards or principles of a democratic society are being ignored or torn apart.”

Martinez cited recent national events and said Proposition 50 is a “temporary but necessary countermeasure to balance things out and give the people a voice.”

“This is not an issue of left and right,” he said. “This is an issue of right and wrong.”

Francisca Garcia, a 73-year-old Bakersfield resident who became a U.S. citizen 55 years ago, also asked the board to reconsider.

“I have consistently felt pride in my chosen country of citizenship,” Garcia said. “It saddens me to see the prejudices displayed by many U.S. citizens today and by many public servants in these times. Please rescind your support of the ‘no’ on 50 and maintain your pledge to act as a nonpartisan entity in the county of Kern.”

Indiana B. Vargas Avelan, a Harvard University junior studying economics, said her family’s history of fleeing political unrest in Nicaragua gives her deep concern about threats to democracy in the U.S.

“My mother came from Nicaragua and fled her country in the 1970s because it was overthrown by a communist leader who became a dictator,” Vargas Avelan said. “What I am most worried about is seeing how America is not far off. We have grown increasingly vulnerable to anti-democratic leaders.”

She added, “Being an American is not being patriotic toward a political party, but coming together and standing for your own rights.”

Marine Corps veteran Dave Wescott said he was disappointed by the board’s vote, arguing it created unnecessary division among voters.

“Sometimes you need to take a step back and not exercise that authority,” Wescott said. “When I voted yes and you said Kern County was voting no, now there’s a conflict. We didn’t need to send a message that there’s a conflict between what our supervisors think Kern County is doing.”

After public comment, supervisors defended their positions.

Supervisor Brian Peters, who voted against rescinding the resolution, said many of his constituents oppose Proposition 50 and noted that other counties had also taken formal stances on the measure.

“We listen to all of our constituents, not just the loudest ones in the room,” Peters said. “There are a significant number of people in Kern County who don’t want this.”

Supervisor David Couch said his opposition stemmed from concerns about transparency in how the maps were drawn.

“You can’t get an answer on who drew the maps,” Couch said. “If the Republican Party had tried the same thing, I would have opposed it.”

The board took no action Tuesday to revisit its vote.