California voters will decide on seven initiatives in November

July 6, 2022

Abortion rights protesters in San Luis Obispo

By KAREN VELE

From abortion rights to online sports gambling, Californians will be asked to decide on seven controversial subjects in November.

Proposition 1: Following the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the nation’s high court would overturn Roe v. Wade, legislators proposed a constitutional amendment. Proposition 1 seeks to amend the state constitution to guarantee the right to choose abortion and contraception.

Proposition 26: In an attempt to expand their gambling enterprises, some Native American tribes want the voters to allow sports wagering, roulette and dice games on tribal lands. The initiative proposes a 10% tax on horse race and sports betting that is expected to raise money for the state budget.

Proposition 27: Funded by online betting companies FanDuel and DraftKings, this initiative will allow online and mobile sports betting through certified gaming tribes and large online betting companies. The measure would result in increased revenues to the state from online sports wagering-related taxes, licensing fees, and penalties. The tribes supporting Proposition 26 are opposed to Proposition 27, in what is expected to be a well-funded battle.

Proposition 28: Promoted by school administrators, this initiative requires the state to set aside additional funding for arts and music education in all K-12 public schools. Expected to raise between $800 million and $1 billion per year, the monies will be unevenly distributed with lower income areas receiving higher funding.

Proposition 29: For the third time, voters will be asked to approve additional restrictions for dialysis providers. Similar attempts failed in both 2018 and 2020. This third-time’s-a-charm version requires a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant to be onsite during all treatment hours.

Proposition 30: This initiative seeks a tax on wealthy Californians to supplement electric vehicle purchases, in order to reduce greenhouse gasses. The plan is to increase personal income tax on individuals who make over $2 million a year by 1.75%. Funds raised will primarily be spent on promoting electric vehicle purchases through financial incentives and constructing charging stations.

Proposition 31: The tobacco industry is seeking to overturn a 2020 law that bans the sale of flavored tobacco products.


Loading...

20
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
kayaknut

As said many times, this state does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.


indabarrel

Vote No on all of these……duh…..these California Gov. Aholes need no more money


matthwy58

Let see what our fair state has been up to:

Two initiatives that promote gambling (will help offset skyrocketing prices with wagering income)

One initiative to allow favored tabaco products (will help mask the taste of tabaco products so more can enjoy all the helth benefits)

One to ensure the ability to terminate your unborn child’s life (this is important in a modern caring society)

One will tax higher income people to promote electric vehicles (let’s make it simple and require anyone who owns a tesla to purchase a chevy volt for a homeless person)

Need I say more?


Adam Trask

Sports betting is already legal in 27 states and more are considering it, including California.


It is a no-brainer and will happen soon. Americans like to gamble—Las Vegas broke its own records last year with $13.4 billion in gambling revenue.


Prop. 27 is definitely the better option. Most of the states have opted for online sites to be legal. Prop 26 would limit betting to tribal casinos. Not sure why both options can’t co-exist, as in Arizona.


matthwy58

So is marrying your cousin, but do you really want to go there.


derasmus

How about a proposition to limit the number of propositions, maybe one allowed per election cycle?


Also, how about a proposition to make the legislature a part time legislature. With that salaries and benefits would be reduced accordingly.


I know, wishful thinking…


Adam Trask

Sure, let’s limit democracy. We definitely shouldn’t let the unwashed masses decide on their own fate.


The politicians are better at it.


derasmus

You don’t get my point. Politicians, legislators, are not doing their job. We are enabling the failures of our “representative” republic when so many issues get put up as an initiative, a popular vote, as opposed to the legislative process. I care about the machinery and process’s of democracy, don’t you?


What do we pay these people for? If they won’t pass laws then what are they doing there?


I submit, not much.


Adam Trask

“Politicians, legislators, are not doing their job.”


While I don’t disagree, I don’t think many of these things can get done without a direct vote. Voters in every state that legalized sports betting did so with an initiative. Prop 1 is just an attempt to set in stone the state’s view on legal abortion. But the props such as 28 and 30 probably should have been passed through the legislature.


LeroyMoo

So, proposition 30 is to tax the wealthy in order to accelerate the legislative sabotage that’s diminishing the reliability of our bulk electric system by placing EV load on a system it can’t handle. It must be nice to screw up everything you touch with virtue signaling and not have any accountability.


JCILOALL

Proposition 30: “This initiative seeks a tax on wealthy Californians to supplement electric vehicle purchases, in order to reduce greenhouse gasses.”

Climate change. Still the biggest scam and biggest lie the left has ever come up with. It has become their ‘religion.’


nunsense

ooh goody a chance to vote on a tax increase on those evil people making lots of money! yipppeeee! and maybe, just maybe we can get more EV’s to charge putting even more load on our strained grid! win, win!!!


Adam Trask

No, not a tax increase on “those evil people.” Simply an acknowledgement that wealthy Americans should pay their fair share.


In 1980 the federal marginal tax rate was 70%. Ronald Reagan reduced it to 50%. Now, it is 37%. By all accounts the rich have continued to get richer and even at 70% they would still live quite well.


In 1980 the average CEO made 25 times more than his average employee. Today that number is close to 400 times.


The U.S. needs to move away from fossil fuels. There is no better evidence for this than the astronomical increases in property insurance paid for by people who live next to the ocean. Some insurance companies have simply stopped providing insurance for coastal areas. Look it up.


SLO Thought

If you still beleive the ‘Rich’ don’t pay their ‘Fair’ share, You are living in a world that doesn’t exist. Year in and year out the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of all income tax . The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of income tax. If you ask me..that is easily ‘Their’ fair share. Can anyone disagree with those numbers?? Seriously, what is the argument here? OBTW ….’Moving Away from Fossil Fuel anytime soon is a pipe dream. Unless you are for a total collapse of the economy, leading to mass starvation..Just a reality ..Do the Math and Science, then you will understand.Some day it will be possible, but we are a long wat from it until we accept realistic economically feasable power generation, such as NUCLEAR…..AAAGGGHHH…. lol


Adam Trask

It always amazed me that middle class or working class Republicans were so quick to defend the ultra-rich (excuse me if you are rich, though doubt you would give a rip about my comments if that were true).


Income inequality has only grown larger over the last 40 years, and tremendously so since the 2008 recession. For example, CEO pay has gone up well over 1,000 percent since 1978. The average CEO now makes 350 times more than his average worker. That number was only 21 times in 1970.


As for EV’s, it can be done in the next several years, and Prop. 30 is an excellent start.


Jorge Estrada

How about a Proposition without a number for the legalization of consent to anything? Seems like that’s where California is going one number at a time.


Michael A.

All of these props are either silly or ill conceived. I will vote NO on all of them.


Adam Trask

“funding for arts and music education in all K-12 public schools”


Silly? Really?


Joe Blow

Not silly, because the money will never get to the intended cause. Read the fine print. It’s not a locked box.


Adam Trask

What, you mean this:


“The new money would be disproportionately reserved for schools with many low-income students to hire new arts staff.”


California schools in high property tax areas already enjoy robust music and arts programs. Low income areas, not so much.


Paying for quality teachers for underrepresented populations is not a bad thing.


Otherwise, I see nothing else in this bill that would be objectionable.


Please point out where I’m wrong.


https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/21-0036A1%20%28Music%20and%20Art%20Education%29.pdf