# California Propositions 2022 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 8, 2022, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927 "2022-10-08T01:25:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2022, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/41 "2022-10-10T18:43:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There are two other clauses in 26- one allows more games, like craps. Not so bad. The other allows the tribal casinos to sue California poker rooms (which have been around for a long time) out of existence. That is why 26 is a bad prop, that little stealth clause. Didn’t know that. I haven’t gotten the arguments for and against yet. That would make me vote no - assuming 27 is still losing as big as it is now. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2022, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/42 "2022-10-10T18:49:09Z")
Does anyone have a good link to the polling data on these? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2022, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/43 "2022-10-10T18:49:49Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > **Prop 1** : easy YES. > **Prop 26** : NO. I’m fine with extending the tribes’ monopoly on casinos, but the horse racing is too much. > **Prop 27** : NO. I barely watch commercial television, but the online betting advertisements have completely annoyed me. Yeah, that’s a petty reason, but the tribes’ ads don’t bother me. > **Prop 28** : YES. Education is the key infrastructure to bettering our state. Whether this gets funded by cuts in other areas or by higher taxes, it’s fine by me. > **Prop 29** : NO. This feels too much like how abortion clinics have been regulated out of existence. I don’t think that’s the end goal here, but the means feels wrong. > **Prop 30** : YES. Money for electric vehicles and infrastructure, more taxes on the rich. That’s a win-win. > **Prop 31** : YES. The legislature passed this law and tobacco corporations delayed it with this proposition. Screw 'em. Me too although a couple for slightly different reasons. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2022, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/44 "2022-10-10T18:50:39Z")
Yeah, a careful reading of 26 turned me against it. The card room attack is just a non-starter for me. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2022, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/45 "2022-10-10T19:25:48Z")
How about some poor polling data? **How are you planning to vote on the 2022 California propositions?** _Poll ([view on site](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/45))_ ---
**Author:** ![mtnmatt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a3d4f5/32.png) [@mtnmatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mtnmatt)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2022, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/46 "2022-10-11T02:35:09Z")
I hadn’t heard of the poker club clause of Prop 26 until reading here but have now seen two different ads specifically about that aspect. The YES ad was a series of headlines about how corrupt the poker rooms are and that law enforcement wants rid of them. I was not paying close enough attention to catch the details of who paid. The NO ad was funded in part by Hawaiian Gardens casino. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2022, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/47 "2022-10-11T11:41:54Z")
Yeah, I dont think we’ll find any of the for/against camps for either of the gambling props 26 and 27 are squeaky clean - they all stink of corruption. To me, it just comes down to the outcome of a yes/no vote on each. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2022, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/48 "2022-10-11T14:25:50Z")
If 26 and 27 both pass can they both be implemented or is it one of those things where the one that gets the most votes wins out? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2022, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/49 "2022-10-11T14:42:40Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > If 26 and 27 both pass can they both be implemented or is it one of those things where the one that gets the most votes wins out?   I think they can both be implemented. At a high level, Prop 26 expands what Indian casinos can do, and Prop 27 permits online gambling. But it’s possible that there’s something contradictory down in the weeds. Although usually the official summaries will warn voters of this. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2022, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/50 "2022-10-11T16:12:18Z")
I think this is partially accurate. It’s not “online gambling” in general, it’s “online sports betting” specifically. What appears to have occurred is the California Indian gaming cartel saw online sports betting, via FanDuel and DraftKings, was becoming legal in other states, so they got 26 on the ballot, which would allow **only** their casinos and a few race tracks to have legal sports betting, essentially blocking those two companies from expanding into CA. FanDuel and DraftKings got 27 on the ballot to permit them to operate online sports betting legally in the state, **along with** allowing the Indian casinos to offer it. I am not sure what would happen if both pass - it seems if there is an inherent conflict with the results of both passing, that would probably be sent to the courts, for expensive litigation. [Here’s an article](https://www.californiacasinos.com/news/california-sports-betting-prop-26-prop-27-both-pass-what-happens-legal-expert/) that essentially says they both go into effect, so everyone gets their sports betting in CA, and courts will decide which parts of each initiative are in conflict. Sounds like a major payday for attorneys. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2022, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/51 "2022-10-12T16:16:05Z")
There have been contradictory propositions in the past where the one with the most votes became valid if they both [passed. I had assumed 26 and 27 were like that, but I don’t think I saw anything one way or the other, so I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2022, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/52 "2022-10-12T19:54:18Z")
redacted ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2022, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/53 "2022-10-12T19:58:22Z")
Below is a great article. Summary: If both get more than 50%, the one with the most votes wins\*. Both are doing poorly in the polls but momentum is moving towards passing. Prop 26 has 43% and Prop 27 has 37% support in the latest polling. > **[Support for sports gambling Propositions 26 and 27 grows, but only one is...](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2022-10-11/sports-gambling-propositions-26-27)** > > The two propositions would increase sports betting across California \*It’s theoretically possible for one to get more YES votes and the other to get a higher percentage of YES votes. I wonder how that would be handled. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2022, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/54 "2022-10-13T17:28:20Z")
Slightly off topic but there is a “non-partisan” race for State Superintendent of Public Institution. The incumbent, Tony Thurmond, is a Democrat. He is running against Republican Lance Christensen. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2022, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/55 "2022-10-13T17:41:33Z")
Prop 30 is interesting as far as who is supporting it and who isn’t. As a reminder, it will increase State income tax on income above $2M from 13.3% to 15.05%. The funds will go to electric vehicle infrastructure and wildfire suppression and prevention. Major supporters are: The Democratic Party, Lyft, Firefighters Union, Electrical Workers Union, American Lung Association. Major opponents are: The Republican Party, Governor Newsome, California Teachers Association (Union). The opponents are odd bedfellows. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2022, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/56 "2022-10-13T17:47:13Z")
Apparently the CTA is against Prop 30 because they want the tax base to be available for education. > Prop. 30’s narrowly focused tax increase puts a special interest lock box on income taxes that traditionally would fund transitional kindergarten, public schools, community colleges, healthcare, public safety, and other important priorities > **[Governor Newsom & California Teachers Announce Formal Opposition to Prop 30](https://www.cta.org/press-release/governor-newsom-california-teachers-announce-formal-opposition-to-prop-30)** They have a point that the funding of education in California is a terrible mess. But I don’t find the reasoning persuasive enough to vote against Prop 30. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2022, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/57 "2022-10-13T17:58:08Z")
And Newsome doesn’t want to piss off his big donors, particularly because he has designs on the Presidency when he’s termed out for Gov. I was all set for a YES vote and probably will vote YES but Santa Barbara’s very lefty free weekly recommended NO. Their reasoning: > "This may, in fact, be a good idea, but its time has definitely not yet come. Prop. 30 would increase the personal income taxes of people earning $2 million or more a year by 1.75 percent and using a big chunk of the proceeds to underwrite the cost of rebates for electrical vehicles and a smaller chunk to hire more firefighters. Sounds good, right? > > Here are the problems. First, there is still money in the California kitty designated to give EV rebates to low- and middle-class drivers. Secondly, the Inflation Reduction Act — passed at the instigation of President Joe Biden and the Democratic Congress — has set aside untold billions for the same purpose. California has $300 million in federal dollars already on the way to help spur the construction of EV charging stations. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act has created tax incentives to help subsidize companies in low-income neighborhoods build on-site charging stations. The feds are also providing $7,500 rebates for customers buying new EVs, which the Inflation Reduction Act is greatly expanding in certain ways. Under the new rules, the cap on the number of cars that can be purchased with such rebates will be eliminated, but new rules will be imposed requiring that the rebates be used to buy cars built in America and within certain price parameters. > > The impact of that massive infusion has yet to be even felt. It’s too soon to conclude we need to spend more. Vote no." ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2022, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/58 "2022-10-13T17:58:14Z")
Well now I hear the words ‘lock box’ in Dana Carvey’s voice. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2022, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/59 "2022-10-13T18:16:11Z")
The more I read about it, the more I’m feeling the switch to “No” on 30. That Lyft is supporting it so hard makes me _very_ suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2022, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927/60 "2022-10-13T18:22:07Z")
Hard is an undersatement. YES got $37.1M in contributions of which $35M came from Lyft. No got $11.5M in contributions. The top donors were three individuals who gave $1M apiece. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-propositions-2022/972927.md?page=4)