California voters approve or reject ballot propositions


William Franco Espinosa

“I Voted” stickers are given out to those who vote in the 2022 California general election inside the Premier America Credit Union Arena at CSUN on Monday, Nov. 7, 2022, in Northridge, Calif. Nov. 8 marks the 2022 California general election that includes federal, statewide and judicial candidates, as well as ballot propositions, local candidates and measures.

Elizabeth Ordonez, Assistant News Editor


PROPOSITION 1: “Constitutional Right To Reproductive Freedom”


Results: Proposition 1’s approval means the California Constitution will be changed to include the existing rights to reproductive freedom — including the right to choose whether or not to use contraceptives or have an abortion.

At the state level, the California Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. This includes the right to make reproductive choices, such as whether or not to have an abortion or use contraceptives. Despite an individual’s right to privacy already protected in the California Constitution, it is not defined clearly. The state law does put some restrictions on abortions if it meets state interests, such as public health and safety.

Why: Due to the recent court changes in June 2022, lawmakers placed Proposition 1 on the ballot to ensure reproductive health care remains a constitutional right in California.

Supporters: Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice California

Opponents: California Alliance of Pregnancy Care, Pacific Justice Institute California, Catholic Conference International


PROPOSITION 26: “Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering On Tribal Lands”


Result: Proposition 26’s rejection means that sports betting will continue to be illegal in California. Tribal casinos will continue to not offer roulette and games with dice. No changes will be made to state gambling laws.

The California Constitution and state law would have done the following:
– Enforce state gambling laws.
– Allow in-person sports betting on the racetracks and tribal casinos.
– Allow privately operated racetracks and tribal casinos to offer sports betting.
– Bets on high school games and California college teams would have not been permitted.
– Allow roulette games and games with dice such as craps at tribal casinos.

Why: Thirty-one states jumped to legalize sports betting in their communities when the U.S Supreme Court legalized it in 2018. Americans will have made about $57 billion on sports betting in 2021. California lawmakers attempted to qualify sports betting initiatives for the 2022 election.

Supporters: Tribes with casinos/organizations led by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Pechanga Band of Indians, Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

Opponents: California Republican Party, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California


PROPOSITION 27: “Allows Online And Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands”


Result: Proposition 27’s rejection means sports betting will still be illegal in California. State gambling laws that are in effect now will not be changed.

Proposition 27 attempted to create a new onlines sports betting platform that would have reduced illegal online sports betting. The idea was for people 21 years and older to be able to do the following:
– Make online sports betting over the internet and on mobile devices.
– Able to place bets away from tribal lands.
– Allow bets on athletic events like sports games or award shows.
– Bets on high school sports games and the elections are not permitted.

Why: Thirty-one states jumped to legalize sports betting in their communities when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized it in 2018. Americans will have made about $57 billion on sports betting in 2021. California lawmakers attempted to qualify sports betting initiatives for the 2022 election.

Supporters: FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, Major League Baseball

Opponents: Native American tribal organizations, California Democratic Party, California Republican Party


PROPOSITION 28: “Provides Additional Funding For Arts And Music Education In Public Schools”


Result: Proposition 28’s approval means the state will provide more than the required funding specifically for arts education in public schools and community colleges.

California public schools are operated by school districts and charter schools under local governing boards. Public schools have about 6 million students enrolled from kindergarten through grade 12. About 60% of public school students come from low-income families.

Why: Proposition 28 asks that the state provide 1% of the state budget, about $1 billion annually, to go toward public schools and community colleges for music and arts education.

Supporters: SEIU California, California Democratic Party

Opponents: None


PROPOSITION 29: “Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional At Kidney Dialysis Clinics And Establishes Other State Requirements”


Result: Proposition 29’s rejection means dialysis clinics will not be required to have a practitioner present onsite during all treatment hours.

Proposition 29 asked that the CDPH administer and implement regulation on the following:
– Dialysis clinics must have either a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on-site for all treatment hours.
– Dialysis clinics to report infection-related information to CDPH. If required information is not sent or inaccurate the clinic will be charged with a penalty.
– Dialysis clinics must report to patients who own at least 5% of the clinic at all times. This means before and after a treatment and each year. The clinic must also report this information annually to the CDPH.

– Dialysis clinics must notify and obtain consent from CDPH for closing or reducing services.

– Dialysis clinics will not refuse care to patients based on what insurance will cover patients treatment.

Why: Supporters claim to reform the industry and create transparency, meaning that it will be easier to see the actions being performed in these companies. Dialysis companies claim it’s the union who are attempting to organize workers and clinics.

Supporters: SEIU Healthcare United Workers West, California Democratic Party

Opponents: DaVita Inc., Fresenius Medical Care, American Academy of Nephrology PAs


PROPOSITION 30: “Provides Funding For Programs To Reduce Air Pollution And Prevent Wildfires By Increasing Tax On Personal Income Over $2 Million”


Result: Proposition 30’s rejection means no changes will be made to taxes on personal income up to about $2 million annually.

The state collects tax on personal income earned within the state. Revenue helps pay for education, prisons, health care and other public services.

Why: Proposition 30 asked for taxpayers with incomes above $2 million to pay an additional tax of 1.75% on the share of their income to help fund two programs — Zero Emission Vehicle Programs, and the Wildfire Response and Prevention Program.

Supporters: Lyft, Cal Fire Local 2881, California State Association of Electrical Workers

Opponents: California Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Republican Party, California Chamber of Commerce


PROPOSITION 31: “Referendum On 2020 Law That Would Prohibit The Retail Sale Of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products”


Result: Proposition 31’s approval means in-person stores and vending machines can NOT sell most flavored tobacco products and tobacco flavor enhancers.

Why: Proposition 31 upheld a 2020 law that prohibited the sale of flavored tobacco products. This includes flavored cigarettes, e-cigarettes, pods for vape pens, and chewing tobacco products.

Supporters: American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Opponents: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, American Snuff Company, President of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce