The Placer Union High School District passed a resolution on Sept. 16 stating its opposition to Proposition 50, the proposition to temporarily change Congressional district maps in response to Texas/partisan redistricting, the proposition’s official summary reads.
This came during an open session of the PUHSD Board of Trustees which took place following a closed door session wherein the board entered into a contract with “Advocates for Faith & Freedom.”
Similar to other conservative leaning school districts throughout California like the Redlands Unified School Board and the Kern County Board of Education, PUHSD is preparing for the legal ramifications of their opposition to transgender athletes participating in Title XI sports, despite the district having no trans athletes among its student body.
“The district is not taking a position on national politics, but we are mindful that Supreme Court decisions can impact local school policies,” district spokesperson Sarah Rath said in an interview with the Sacramento Bee.
Although the district may be recently involving themselves in national discussions, the law firm they’re working with is no stranger to controversy. AFF is a non-profit conservative law firm that describes itself as a nonprofit legal ministry dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts. One of their most notable cases, listed first among a list of successful cases tried and won by the firm, led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which found that facilities being required by law to offer reproductive health services was in breach of their First Amendment liberties. This, along with other high profile and pro-religious litigation, seems to be the firm’s modus operandi.
The PUHSD has entered into contract with the law firm to “prepare amicus brief on behalf of client (PHUSD) to be filed with the US Supreme Court in the cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., addressing questions under Title IX related to fairness in girls’ athletics,” the scope of the contract states.
The redistricting proposition is coming to California ballots this November as a response to a similar initiative passed by the Texas State Congress to secure five additional Congressional seats in the 2026 midterm election.
The vote on the redistricting resolution was nearly unanimous, save the solo dissent of trustee David Underwood, as well as Student Senator Cooper Barr.
“Our role is education, our role is not politics.” Underwood said.
The “Resolution Opposing Proposition 50” holds that the school district will be unfairly impacted by the redistricting effort, which will split the district and incorporate it into three separate Congressional districts, and that this imposition will fragment advocacy, increase administrative burdens and reduce continuity for local election policy.
The resolution argues that the redistricting election will cost the state of California an unnecessary $200 million. The resolution goes on to state that despite passing Proposition 36 in 2024, the State of California has failed to fund voter-approved measures such as Proposition 36, passed in 2024 to revise the “Three Strikes Law” policy. It further adds that existing redistricting policy should remain intact as outlined in the passing of Proposition 11 in 2008 which established an independent redistricting policy in California, as well as the passage of Proposition 20 in 2010 which handed redistricting authority from the California State Legislature to the California Redistricting Commission.
“Everything is connected to our children,” said a Placer resident who identified herself as “Sharon,” at the lectern discussing the importance of the political activities of the PUHSD.
