Next Tuesday, California’s midterm elections will give voters the chance to weigh in on seven proposals on issues ranging from reproductive rights to flavored tobacco products. Here’s an overview of the measures to consider and what they mean for California residents.
Prop 1: Abortion
Proposition 1 will ask California voters whether or not the state should codify abortion rights into the California State Constitution. A “yes” vote supports the amendment to cement abortion in the state constitution, prohibiting the state from interfering with a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion. A “no” vote opposes codifying abortion in the state constitution, leaving reproductive rights to existing laws and statutes.
The Democratic Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, as well as Governor Gavin Newsom and Senator Dianne Feinstein have expressed support for Proposition 1. More than $14 million has been donated to support the proposal from organizations such as Yes on Prop 1, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and Newsom for California Governor 2022. The Republican Party opposed the proposal, with nearly $300,000 being donated by committees like Stop Prop 1.
“It’s really frustrating that the subject is up for a vote,” said Sabrina Dimesa, an economics graduate from Hermosa Beach, Calif. “I feel like it’s a right that should be protected regardless – it’s an inalienable right.”
A recent poll suggests that 69% supported the measure, while 25% opposed it.
Prop 26 & Prop 27: sports betting
Both proposals seek to expand the availability of sports betting in California.
Proposition 26 would legalize sports betting on Native American territorial lands and race tracks across the state. A “yes” vote supports the legalization of sports betting on Native American territories and state racetracks. A “no” vote opposes this legalization, maintaining the illegal status of sports betting.
Proposition 27 would allow tribes and licensed gaming companies to offer online sports betting on mobile devices. In addition, 10% of sports betting would go to fighting homelessness and helping people with gambling addiction issues. A small portion of the money raised will also go to tribes not involved in betting. sports online. A “yes” vote supports the legalization of online gambling, while a “no” vote opposes it.
“Oddly, what’s at the heart of a proposal on legalizing sports gambling appears, on the outside, to be about homelessness,” said Douglas Becker, associate professor of political science and international relations at USC. “It really has very little to do with homelessness, and I have to admit to being very frustrated with it… It just seems like a weird political prospect there.”
Prop 26 has received support from the Peace and Freedom Party, with more than $130 million in contributions from organizations such as the Pechanga Indian Band and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Prop 26 received opposition from the Republican Party, with over $43 million raised by No on 26, the California Commerce Club, and other organizations.
Proposition 27 drew additional opposition from Newsom, from both the Democratic and Republican parties and the Peace and Freedom Party. Organizations like Yes on 26, No on 27 and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians have contributed the nearly $250 million opposing the proposal.
A recent poll suggests that neither measure will pass.
Prop 28: Arts Funding in Public Schools
This proposal would nearly double California’s funding for public education arts and music programs, sending 30% of the funding allocated to schools serving low-income students for years to come. A “yes” vote would support increasing the budget for arts education, while a “no” vote would oppose this increase in funding.
The measure garnered support from the Democratic Party, the Yes on 28 committee and California’s SEIU. There was no official opposition to this proposal. More than $10 million has been donated to support the proposal from Yes on 28, Hollywood stars like Sylvester Stallone and Barbara Streisand, and teachers’ unions.
Prop 29: Kidney dialysis clinics
Proposition 29 would require dialysis clinics to have a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on site; report data on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care. This measure is similar to Prop 8 and Prop 23, which were rejected in California in 2018 and 2020 respectively. A “yes” vote would support these new provisions for dialysis clinics, while a “no” vote would oppose them.
The measure has garnered support from the Democratic Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and Californians for the Protection of Kidney Dialysis Patients, with nearly $8 million raised for the proposal. It received opposition from the Republican Party and organizations like the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and the California Chamber of Commerce, which raised nearly $90 million against the measure.
Prop 30: Wealth tax for zero-emission vehicle programs
Proposition 30 seeks to tax wealthy Californians who earn more than $2 million a year. The 1.75% tax will be used to fund zero-emission vehicle projects, charging stations and forest fire prevention programs. A “yes” vote would support this wealth tax, while a “no” vote would oppose it.
Prop 30 has garnered support from the Democratic Party, with nearly $50 million raised by groups like Yes on 39 and Lyft Inc. The Republican Party, Peace and Freedom Party and Newsom have openly opposed the proposal, with nearly of 25 million dollars collected by No on. 30 and other institutions to lobby against it.
“I find it interesting that political leaders like Gavin Newsom opposed it,” Becker said. “If it’s green, I think Californians would vote for it – definitely USC students [would].”
Polls show that 41% supported the proposal, while 52% opposed it.
Prop 31: Flavored Tobacco
This proposal asks voters whether or not SB 793 should be repealed or upheld in California. SB 793 was proposed in 2020 and sought to ban flavored tobacco products statewide, with a $250 fine for those who commit a violation. A “yes” vote upholds SB 793, banning the sale of flavored tobacco products. A “no” vote repeals SB 793, allowing the sale of flavored tobacco products.
The proposal garnered support from Newsom, the Democratic Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and the California Teachers Association, with more than $35 million contributed by Yes on 31, Michael Bloomberg and others. The Republican Party and a myriad of tobacco brands opposed the proposal, raising more than $23 million against the proposal.
“The ban won’t work,” said Daphne Yaman, a young journalism student. “It’s a matter of marketing to a younger audience. I think that’s the problem, but I don’t think banning the sale would benefit anyone.
A recent poll suggests the measure will pass.
Registered California voters can vote on Tuesday, November 8.