Embedded Files
Make informed decisions on California Propositions
Make informed decisions on California Propositions
Jump to a section
Jump to a section
Proposition 1 - Abortion rights in State Constitution
Proposition 1 - Abortion rights in State Constitution
Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes Means: The CA Constitution would be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom—such as the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and use contraceptives.
Proponents Say: It will prevent California from going backwards on reproductive rights due to changes in state laws in future.
Who is for Yes: Planned Parenthood, California Medical Association, League of Women Voters of California, California Democratic Party, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Hillary Clinton. Click here to see more proponents.
No Means: No chages to the CA Constitution. These rights, however, would continue to exist under other state law.
Opponents Say: It is unneccssary in California and can create confusion and court battles due to potential conflicts with local laws.
Who is for No: California Catholic Conference, International Faith Based Coalition, California Republican Party. Click here to see more opponents.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Proposition 26 - Legalize sports betting at tribal casinos
Proposition 26 - Legalize sports betting at tribal casinos
Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes Means: Race tracks and tribal casinos could offer in-person sports betting, roulette, and games played with dice.
Proponents Say: It will increase tribal self-sufficiency. It will also generate money for the state of California.
Who is for Yes: 27 tribes including Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Pechanga Band of Indians, Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, NAACP, Treasurer Fiona Ma. Click here to see more proponents.
No Means: No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
Opponents Say: It'll allow tribal casinos to sue competing card rooms. They also argue it will revive the horse racing industry, which they say endangers horses.
Who is for No: California Republican Party, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals chapters and local humane societies, California Black and Hispanics Chambers of Commerce. Click here to see more opponents.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Proposition 27 - Legalize sports betting online
Proposition 27 - Legalize sports betting online
Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes Means: Online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices to people 21 years of age and older on non-tribal lands in California. Also, a new state unit would be created to regulate online sports betting.
Proponents Say: It would create a permanent source of funding to reduce homelessness and will allow every tribe to benefit. It would protect against underage gambling and youth sporting events.
Who is for Yes: 3 Native American Tribes, FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM and four other gaming companies. Major League Baseball. Some homelessness advocates. Click here to see more proponents.
No Means: Sports betting would continue to be illegal in California. No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
Opponents Say: It would turn every cellphone and computer into a gambling device and escalate the risks of underage and problem gambling. They also say it would drive business away from tribal casinos and threaten tribal sovereignty and into large corporations.
Who is for No: 50 Native American tribes and tribal organizations, California Democratic Party, California Republican Party, California Teachers Association. Click here to see more opponents.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Proposition 28 - Additional Funding for Art\Music Education
Proposition 28 - Additional Funding for Art\Music Education
Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools. Initiative Statute.
Yes Means: The state would provide additional funding above the constitutionally required amount of funding, specifically for arts education in public schools.
Proponents Say: Arts/music instruction could help address the mental health crisis facing CA youth as they recover from the pandemic. Arts funding is expected to generate jobs for educators.
Who is for Yes: Beutner, Sylvester Stallone, Barbara Streisand, Teachers unions, SEIU California, California Democratic Party. Click here to see more proponents.
No Means: Funding for arts education in public schools would continue to depend on state and local budget decisions.
Opponents Say: No official opposition filed.
Who is for No: No official opposition filed.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Proposition 29 - New regulations for Dialysis Clinics
Proposition 29 - New regulations for Dialysis Clinics
Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements. Initiative Statute.
Yes Means: Chronic dialysis clinics would be required to have a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on-site during all patient treatment hours.
Proponents Say: The hours-long dislysis process is a physically draining process that leaves patients vulnerable to medical complications. Having a physician or nurse practitioner available at all times could help reduce hospitalizations.
Who is for Yes: Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation. Click here to see more proponents.
No Means: No new rules for chronic dialysis clinic.
Opponents Say: It is not only unnecessary, as clinics already provide quality care and have the needed staff to treat and monitor people, but it also would impose burden on the clinics which may result in reduced hours of services or closures.
Who is for No: American Nurses Association, California Medical Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Republican Party. Click here to see more opponents.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Proposition 30 - Tax Millionares for e-Vehicle Programs
Proposition 30 - Tax Millionares for e-Vehicle Programs
Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute.
Yes Means: Taxpayers would pay an additional tax of 1.75 percent on personal income above $2 million annually. The revenue from this tax would support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities.
Proponents Say: It would generate much-needed funding to address the state’s two leading causes of air pollution: Gasoline-powered vehicles and wildfires. They argue that these investments will better put the state on track to meet its ambitious climate goals.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, Lyft, California Environmental Voters. Click here to see more proponents.
No Means: No change would be made to taxes on personal income above $2 million annually.
Opponents Say: This only benfits ride-share companies. It is unnecessary when Californians already pay the nation’s highest personal income tax rates. With a $97.5 billion surplus in this year’s budget, the state well-equipped to pay for the transition to electric vehicles and additional wildfire prevention efforts.
Who is for No: Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Republican Party, California Teachers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, CA Small Business Association. Click here to see more opponents.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Proposition 31 - Uphold Ban On Flavored Tobacco Products
Proposition 31 - Uphold Ban On Flavored Tobacco Products
Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.
Yes Means: In-person stores and vending machines could not sell most flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers.
Proponents Say: It will protect youth (80% of kids who use tobacco start with a flavored product). It will prevent companies from targeting kids and teens with advertising for flavored products. It will lower smoking rates, especially among people of color, who experience higher rates of smoking-related illnesses.
Who is for Yes: American Lung Association, American Heart Association, SEIU California, California Democratic Party. Click here to see more proponents.
No Means: In-person stores and vending machines could continue to sell flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, as allowed under other federal, state, and local rules.
Opponents Say: It is unnecessary because there are already laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors. It infringes on the rights of adults who use the products. It would increase underground markets and lead to more crime.
Who is for No: President of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Republican Party, President of CalAsian Chamber of Commerce. Click here to see more opponents.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Endorsements - One Page View
Endorsements - One Page View
Here is one-page-view of endorsements by organizations, news/media entity and political parties for the California Propositions, by California Choices.
Link: https://www.californiachoices.org/ballot-endorsements-2022-11
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse