Sacramento leaders never seem to run out of money for pet projects and political games, but they suddenly become stingy when it comes to protecting ordinary Californians, critics argue.
There’s one question on the mind of every Californian who cares about public safety: if the state doesn’t have the money to fund Proposition 36, then why is Governor Gavin Newsom spending $250 million on a special election to gerrymander California’s congressional districts?
Estimates on the cost of the special election range anywhere from $235 million to $250 million. The former and more conservative figure comes from the National Republican Congressional Committee while the latter comes from Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego). DeMaio’s methodology for arriving at the now widely accepted $250 million figure by looking at the cost of the previous special election—about $200 million—and accounting for increases in voter registration, inflation, and pending litigation.
At the same time, Newsom continues to insist that there is no funding available to fully implement Proposition 36, the public safety initiative that California voters themselves approved by a landslide in the most recent election cycle. After its approval, Prop 36 supporters requested $250–$400 million in annual state funding.
In response, Newsom allocated absolutely nothing for it.
His office, at the time of the May Revision to the state budget, argued that their hands were tied due to a $12 billion deficit, and that the deficit itself was the fault of President Donald Trump’s tariffs—not the state’s own leadership and a veto-proof supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate which set and control the state’s spending priorities. Regardless of the merits of that argument—or lack thereof, depending on one’s perspective—critics on both sides of the aisle were quick to point to lambast the Governor for not taking public safety seriously. Democrats later agreed to a one-time investment of $100 million—a far cry from what was requested, and a “paltry” sum according to Senator Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach).
“The paltry $100 million one‑time funding is a slap in the face of nearly 70% of voters who approved it as the Governor and Democratic legislative leaders are deliberately starving law enforcement and probation from any real funding,” said Sen. Strickland.
“A core principle of democracy is the rule of law. A governor may dislike a law, but normally is duty-bound to help implement and enforce it… Newsom insults California voters by not funding Proposition 36,” said Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton.
For the record, those comments were both made prior to—not after—Democrats set their sights on redistricting. These quotes were purposefully selected to illustrate how Newsom’s office acted with regard to the state’s poor financial position just mere months ago.
Now, hundreds of millions can apparently be spent on a project that serves the interests of the ruling party.
What changed?
Many observers already expect Gavin Newsom to position himself for a presidential run in the next election cycle. If that is his ambition, delivering on a voter-approved public safety initiative should have been an easy and straightforward way to demonstrate leadership and broaden his appeal beyond California. Instead, Newsom decided to leave Proposition 36 unfunded and, in so doing, he has almost undoubtedly chosen a path that will make him harder to sell to voters outside of the most ideologically left-leaning enclaves.
Frankly, the issue goes beyond Prop 36. Across the state, urgent needs are being shortchanged while Sacramento pours resources into political fights. Recently, Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Jackson) has raised alarms about the soaring cost of health care premiums for teachers. Districts are struggling to retain educators because benefits have become unaffordable. She argues this represents yet another instance where Newsom and his allies have failed to fund the programs that matter most to Californians.
“Governor Newsom spends over $250 million on a special election, meanwhile teacher’s health care premiums for CalPERS are breaking the bank. When teachers can’t afford to live in CA we all lose,” she said in a Facebook post.
“The political leadership of California has never been more out of touch with the people of California… I’m calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to advance my bill to safeguard democracy in California and end the redistricting war nationwide,” said Congressman Kevin Kiley (R-Roseville).
The bill in question was a House Resolution authored by Rep. Kiley which would, if passed, nullify maps adopted by states after the November 2024 election. It is one of several examples of pending legislation which aspires to end the ongoing partisan redistricting wars taking place in states like California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Utah, and others. Another would be Asm. DeMaio’s “poison pill” to punish lawmakers engaged in deliberate gerrymandering by imposing a ten-year ban from public office.
Newsom’s May Revision also cut—among other things—scholarship funding for middle-income students at CSU’s and UC’s. This is yet another thing that is evidently less important than creating five safe new seats for Democrats in Congress.
“We’ve witnessed the consequences of one-party control in California—escalating costs, underperforming schools, unsafe communities, and the erosion of our freedoms. Governor Newsom’s attempts to consolidate power by dismantling voter-protection safeguards threatens the foundation of our democracy. California belongs to its people, not to its politicians,” said Alvarado-Gil.
“Here’s the worst part: Their partisan recall will waste 200 million taxpayer dollars desperately needed for emergency preparedness and response,” said another critic. “The last thing California needs is another wasteful special election.”
That last quote wasn’t said by a Republican lawmaker in 2025. It was Gavin Newsom himself, in 2021.
