"We now have an estimated price tag for California's special election and Gov. Gavin Newsom's presidential rollout: $282.6 million. The Nov. 4 vote involves Proposition 50, which would gerrymander the state to boost Democratic chances of winning as many as five added House seats in the 2026 midterm election. The intent is to partially compensate for Republican gerrymanders in Texas and other states."
"The ballot measure has already done wonders to boost Newsom's early standing in the 2028 presidential contest - emphasis on the word early. After alienating many in his party by playing footsie with the likes of Steve Bannon and the late Charlie Kirk, Newsom has set hearts aflutter among those yearning for Democrats to "fight back against Trump," to cite what has become the party's chief animating principle and cri de cœur."
"One could ask whether the not-insignificant cost of the special election is the best use of taxpayer dollars, or if the sum would be better spent, as veteran GOP strategist Ken Khachigian suggested in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, "on firefighters, police officers, schoolteachers and road repairs." Newsom, in full barricade-manning mode, has said protecting our precious democracy is "priceless.""
An estimated $282.6 million will fund a Nov. 4 special election tied to Proposition 50, which would redraw districts to increase Democratic chances of gaining up to five House seats in 2026. The redistricting aims to counter Republican gerrymanders in other states. The measure has bolstered Gov. Gavin Newsom's early 2028 presidential standing and energized Democrats seeking to combat former President Trump. Critics question whether the expenditure is the best use of taxpayer funds, suggesting alternatives like public services. Proponents argue the cost prevents larger losses under a hostile federal administration and defends democratic outcomes, while opponents warn of disenfranchising conservative Californians.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]