By Harshitha Kothapalli – Editor-in-Chief

“Harsh Truths with Harshi” is a new Advocate column written by Editor-in-Chief Harshitha Kothapalli. Kothapalli will break down top news events while also sharing her own insights, aiming to promote civic knowledge, discussion, and engagement. This week’s topics are: The Blue Wave, Proposition 50, and The Supreme Court vs. Trump Tariffs.

TOPIC 1: The Blue Wave 

The 2025 Election Day marked a new beginning in American politics, one that left some citizens hopeful and others uneasy about the nation’s direction. 

New York City Mayoral Election

Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani made history by defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo in both the Democratic primary and the general election. 

Mamdani’s campaign priorities (according to nytimes.com)  included…

1. Navigating President Trump’s attacks
2. Universal free child care
3. A rent freeze
4. Mending fences with his critics
5. Set a vision for the Police Department

Mamdani became New York’s first Muslim mayor, symbolizing a shift toward progressive leadership in one of America’s most influential cities. 

Virginia Governor Election

Former Representative and Democrat Abigail Spanberger was elected as Virginia’s first female governor and chief executive. According to CNN, she beat her opponent, Republican Winsome Earle-Sears, with a campaign focusing on affordability and addressing the concerns about “the impact of federal job cuts and the government shutdown on a state with more than 300,000 U.S. government employees.” 

New Jersey Governor Election

Democrat Mikie Sherrill was elected to serve as New Jersey’s 57th governor, defeating her opponent, Republican Jack Ciattarelli. Sherrill’s platform emphasized improving education and expanding access to academic opportunities regardless of income level. 

The Harsh Truth

As the nation continues to navigate a turbulent government shutdown, these elections offer a glimmer of hope amid uncertainty. Mamdani’s rent freeze could bring relief to countless New Yorkers struggling with affordable housing. Spanberger’s victory affirms Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s timeless words: “Women belong in all places where decisions are being made,” and Sherill’s education reforms have the potential to uplift students from every background. Together, these wins mark a significant step toward a government that more closely reflects the people it serves.

—

TOPIC 2: Proposition 50

Proposition 50, passed on November 4, 2025, changes how California’s congressional districts will be drawn for the rest of the decade. Instead of using maps from the state’s independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, Prop 50 authorizes new maps drawn by the state legislature for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections. After the 2030 Census, the independent commission will regain its authority and create the maps starting in 2032. 

Supporters, including Governor Gavin Newsom and several Democratic leaders, argued that the measure was necessary to counteract Republican-led redistricting in other states, such as Texas, that tilted U.S. House representation in their favor. Prop 50 was introduced as a defensive step to ensure fairer representation at the federal level. Opponents, however, saw the proposition as a partisan power grab designed to help Democrats gain up to five additional congressional seats. 

If fully implemented, the new maps could reshape California’s political landscape as soon as the 2026 midterms. Several lawsuits have already been filed challenging the measure’s constitutionality and its treatment of racial and community boundaries, meaning its future impact may depend on upcoming court decisions. 

The Harsh Truth

Prop. 50 reflects a complicated truth about modern politics that we are forced to face. It’s hard to ignore how gerrymandering in other states has tilted national representation altogether. California’s move to temporarily reclaim redistricting power isn’t about partisanship as much as it is about a step towards restoring balance, nationally. 

—

TOPIC 3: The Supreme Court vs. Trump Tariffs

The Supreme Court is taking on one of the most significant trade cases in decades, deciding whether President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed broad tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The law allows presidents to act during national emergencies, but lower courts ruled that it doesn’t explicitly grant power to set tariffs, something the Constitution reserves for Congress. The justices’ decision will determine whether presidents can continue using emergency declarations to shape trade policy on their own. A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund billions in tariff revenue and limit future presidential power over the economy, and reinforce laissez-faire. 

The Harsh Truth

Trump’s recent tariffs have hit Americans where it hurts most, their wallets. According to abcnews.com, around 55% of Americans say tariffs hurt their own family’s financial situation, and about 60% believe tariffs worsen U.S. inflation. While these tariffs were meant to protect U.S. industries, in reality, everyday Americans have been heavily affected. Allowing one leader to control global trade decisions without congressional approval or even oversight sets a dangerous precedent. If the Supreme Court reins in that power, it would mark a necessary return to balance.