California Propositions 2022

Politics & Elections
1

We Californians get off easy this fall with only six state-wide propositions. I just got my voters’ guide in the mail, so time to do some homework. I’ve pulled the proposition title and summary from the state website. And found the endorsements of the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

I’m still undecided on most of these. My inclination is to vote with the Democratic party and vote against the Republican party. But the papers can be persuasive. I’m happy to hear what others think, especially other Californians.

Prop 1: Dem YES, Rep NO, LAT YES, SFC YES.

Constitutional Right To Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This amendment does not narrow or limit the existing rights to privacy and equal protection under the California Constitution. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.

Prop 26: Dem YES, Rep NO, LAT NO, SFC NO.

Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering On Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Also allows: sports wagering at certain horseracing tracks; private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws. Directs revenues to General Fund, problem-gambling programs, enforcement. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually.

Prop 27: Dem NO, Rep NO, LAT NO, SFC NO.

Allows Online And Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online/mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, nonparticipating tribes. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but not likely to exceed $500 million annually. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually.

Prop 28: Dem YES, Rep NEUTRAL, LAT YES, SFC YES.

Provides Additional Funding For Arts And Music Education In Public Schools. Initiative Statute.

Provides additional funding from state General Fund for arts and music education in all K–12 public schools (including charter schools). Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $1 billion annually, beginning next year, for arts education in public schools.

Prop 29: Dem YES, Rep NO, LAT NO, SFC NO.

Requires On-site Licensed Medical Professional At Kidney Dialysis Clinics And Establishes Other State Requirements. Initiative Statute.

Requires physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on site during treatment. Requires clinics to: disclose physicians’ ownership interests; report infection data. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Prop 30: Dem YES, Rep NO, LAT NO, SFC YES.

Provides Funding For Programs To Reduce Air Pollution And Prevent Wildfires By Increasing Tax On Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute.

Allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities.

Prop 31: Dem YES, Rep NO, LAT YES, SFC YES.

Referendum On 2020 Law That Would Prohibit The Retail Sale Of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a 2020 law prohibiting retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually.

Cites
Official Voter Guide
Democratic Party Endorsements
Republican Party Endorsements
Los Angeles Times Endorsements
San Francisco Chronicle Endorsements

2

My inclination, as usual, is to vote NO unless it is very compelling. The Reproductive Freedom amendment is compelling. The others are not.

Also: how many goddamn dialysis propositions do we have to get? It seems like there’s one or two every single time. Why is this such a huge deal? And why can’t the problems be fixed through the normal process?

3

I am not a resident of California, so this does not directly affect me. I do have one question on the Reproductive Freedom proposition. It is noted that California state law already protects reproductive rights. Is this proposition being put forward by the California Dems due to them believing that the national Republican Party is almost certainly going to try to restrict abortion rights nationwide if/when they ever get unified control of Congress and the Presidency? Is the intent of this proposition to try to act as a bulwark against such action?

4

It just embeds the laws into the state constitution. It will be harder for opponents (if they have a majority in government) to amend the constitution than to just void existing law.

5

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

6

I would say prop 31, regarding flavored tobacco, is compelling in this sense:

A yes vote allows an act already passed by the legislature and signed by the governor to go into effect. A no vote repeals the act. So in this case, it is the no vote that makes a change in the outcome. If you want no change in the outcome, you must vote yes.

7

I’m really curious about the constant reappearance of the dialysis thing. Is there some underlying issue that this is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak?

8

grrrrrrr, I hate the site and it’s edit capabilty

9

The underlying issue is that the medical workers have been trying for decades to unionize the dialysis clinics. Their tactic, lately, is to blackmail them by saying “We’re going to keep putting those propositions on the ballot, which you have to pay a fortune to fight, unless you give in to our demands.” They actually don’t care if the propositions pass or not. It’s really sneaky.

10

Prop 1, 30, 31- Yes.
Prop 29- I am consulting with mu buddy on dialysis first.
Rest- NO.

26 just allows more gambling, and is not needed.

11

My friend says this will be very very bad for kidney patients in rural areas. I will vote NO.

12

And 27 would permit way more gaming. 26 just allows it at casinos, 27 allows it everywhere. This is sports gaming for those not deluged by ads for and against these things.

13

That is pretty interesting. Off-hand, I don’t recall any other proposition where it wasn’t the case that NO was the status quo, and YES sought to either override existing law or implement something new. That is pretty compelling, independent of my opinion on the law itself (which I have somewhat mixed feelings on).

14

26 preserves the monopoly that Native Americans have for gambling. 27 allows anyone to do it.

I’m inclined to vote NO on both

15

I’m by no means a gambler (I went to school for Economics and Stats, so I understand how casinos make their money off gamblers too well to enjoy taking part in the process). And yet, I have a hard time figuring out why I should want it kept illegal. Regulate the casinos, yes, and tax the shit out of them. But what’s the argument for keeping it illegal?

16

I have a graduate degree in engineering and as a manufacturing engineer used stats every day. I also never gamble. It’s currently illegal. What’s the compelling reason to change that? I don’t see how it makes California a better place.

17

Devils advocate here. Keep money in the state that otherwise goes to Nevada?

ETA: not a gambler.

18

I think most sports betting is off the books and unregulated so Nevada isn’t much of a factor. One way or another, this will add bureaucracy and easier access will increase misery.

19

People are going to gamble anyways. Better that they do it in a way that’s regulated and taxed than under the table.

Besides, the fact that gambling is currently illegal doesn’t factor into my decision at all. That’s the status quo, and all that it tells me is what somebody’s opinion on tbe matter used to be. It doesn’t tell us what is or is not the best policy.

20

I gamble, but only in Vegas. But I have zero problem with tribes soaking white people for all they are worth, so I’m voting Yes on 26. OTOH, I fucking hate DraftKings and the other online sports books, so 27 gets a HELL NO!

Right now my ballot would look like: 1-Y, 26-Y, 27-N, 28-Y, 29-N, 30-Y, 31-Y.