“Why Have You Become Props to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Presidential Campaign?”: CA Lawmaker Trolls Democrats Over Costly Special Election

California politics has once again erupted into fiery debate, this time over SB280—a measure authorizing a special election that critics say is nothing more than a thinly veiled maneuver to boost Governor Gavin Newsom’s faltering presidential ambitions.

The sharpest rebuke came from Republican Assemblymember Mr. Deio, who delivered a blistering floor speech accusing Democrats of turning themselves into “props” for Newsom’s campaign. His remarks, punctuated by accusations of waste, hypocrisy, and manipulation, have added new fuel to the already combustible conversation around redistricting, election integrity, and fiscal responsibility in the Golden State.

A Heated Exchange in the Legislature

The confrontation began when Mr. Deio sarcastically requested “permission to use a prop” during Assembly proceedings. When told that props were not allowed, he snapped back: “Then why have you become props to Governor Gavin Newsom’s presidential campaign?”

According to Deio, SB280 represents an “unnecessary special election” that will cost taxpayers an estimated $4 billion—at a time when the state faces a multi-billion-dollar deficit. The only reason for such an expenditure, he argued, is political theater: “Because his campaign for president has been going down in flames and he needs something to prop up his chances. Make no mistake about it. This is a political stunt.”

The Recall vs. SB280

Democrats have compared SB280 to the 2021 recall election that challenged Newsom, arguing that California voters have precedent for mid-cycle electoral contests. But Deio forcefully rejected that analogy.

“The recall in 2021 was a citizen’s right,” he said. “You may disagree with it … but it is a right of the citizens to collect signatures and place items on the ballot and trigger a special election. If you felt this was necessary, you should have done a citizens’ initiative campaign. You should have collected your signatures like the recall backers did. But you didn’t—because you have no problem spending scarce tax dollars in the middle of a budget crisis.”

Redistricting Power Struggle

At the heart of the controversy is ACA8, a Democratic-backed measure that effectively transfers authority away from California’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and back into the hands of state politicians.

Deio accused Democrats of orchestrating backroom deals to redraw congressional districts for partisan advantage. “That’s what ACA8 does: it takes the power away from the Citizens Commission and gives it right back to the politicians so they can go behind closed doors and manipulate maps and fashion districts for themselves or their friends in the future,” he said.

For opponents of SB280, the move undermines the spirit of Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition 20 (2010), which stripped legislators of the power to draw their own districts. Critics argue that California voters deliberately chose an independent commission to prevent gerrymandering and protect electoral fairness.

A Budget in Crisis

Fiscal concerns played a major role in Deio’s fiery speech. He lambasted Democrats for approving costly programs, such as extending free healthcare to undocumented immigrants—an initiative projected to cost California $10 billion.

“You say we have to defend dollars for California, but you have wantonly wasted money,” he charged. He suggested that the $250 million earmarked for the special election could instead be used to fund Proposition 36, which voters approved to strengthen penalties for repeat offenders.

“$250 million would fully fund Prop 36 so we could give tools to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to arrest and punish criminals,” Deio argued. “Voters voted for Prop 36, but you refused to fund it. From the party that says, ‘Let the voters decide,’ you do what you want. Might makes right.”

Changing the Rules of the Game

Beyond the financial cost, Deio accused Democrats of trampling over constitutional safeguards and manipulating election law. SB280 includes an “urgency clause,” which shortens the timeline required for a statewide election.

“You change election law and now you’re going to slap a misleading ballot title on it,” he warned. According to him, polling data obtained by Democratic strategists shows that voters would be more supportive of a ballot initiative that “retains the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.” But in reality, Deio said, Democrats are “eviscerating that commission” while trying to conceal it with deceptive language.

“You say you trust the voters, but you don’t trust them enough to tell them the truth,” he continued. “You are nullifying the commission, suspending the voice of the citizens, and once you seize power back from them, you will never give it back.”

The Broader Political Landscape

Deio’s remarks reflect a growing unease among Republicans—and even some independent observers—that California Democrats are leveraging state resources to elevate Newsom’s national profile. While the governor has not formally declared a presidential run, speculation about his ambitions has intensified as he has taken increasingly high-profile stances on national issues, from climate policy to abortion rights.

By linking SB280 to presidential politics, critics hope to reframe what might otherwise seem like a technical redistricting dispute into a broader question of political integrity. “This is not about fair elections,” Deio said. “It’s about Gavin Newsom’s future and Democrats’ control of power.”

Democracy or Power Grab?

For defenders of SB280, the measure is a necessary adjustment to ensure California’s representation remains fair and consistent with shifting demographics. They argue that independent commissions are not immune to flaws and that legislative oversight is sometimes required.

But for critics, this justification rings hollow. They see the bill as a calculated attempt to bypass the safeguards put in place by voters in 2010, effectively rolling back reforms that were designed to prevent exactly this kind of political manipulation.

Deio’s scathing indictment framed the Democratic majority as hypocrites: claiming to defend democracy while simultaneously undermining it. “You don’t care what the voters said in 2010,” he charged. “You disregard it. You can’t even win based on the truth.”

Conclusion: A Clash Over Trust and Power

The showdown over SB280 is about more than just one special election—it’s about whether California’s political establishment can be trusted to uphold the principles of fairness and accountability.

In a state already grappling with a massive budget deficit, housing shortages, and public safety concerns, the optics of a $4 billion special election tied to partisan advantage could prove politically damaging. Critics like Deio are betting that voters will see through what they describe as a “political stunt.”

Whether the measure advances or stalls, the debate has laid bare a fundamental tension in California politics: the struggle between citizen-led reforms designed to limit political power and a governing class determined to retain control.

As Deio concluded in his floor speech, the issue comes down to trust. “You say you respect the vote of the people—but when it comes to redistricting, Prop 36, or spending billions we don’t have, you do what you want. Might makes right. That’s exactly what you’ve done for the last 72 hours.”

For Californians watching from the outside, the fight over SB280 may feel familiar: another battle in the long war over who controls the levers of democracy—and at what cost.