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.
Does anyone have a good link to the polling data on these?
Me too although a couple for slightly different reasons.
Yeah, a careful reading of 26 turned me against it. The card room attack is just a non-starter for me.
How about some poor polling data?
How are you planning to vote on the 2022 California propositions?
- 1-YES
- 1-NO
- 26-YES
- 26-NO
- 27-YES
- 27-NO
- 28-YES
- 28-NO
- 29-YES
- 29-NO
- 30-YES
- 30-NO
- 31-YES
- 31-NO
0 voters
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
redacted
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
Well now I hear the words ‘lock box’ in Dana Carvey’s voice.
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.
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.