Diving into the 2022 midterm ballot propositions

The Panther breaks down all seven propositions that California voters will vote on during this year’s midterm elections. UNSPLASH

With the 2022 midterm elections taking place in just a couple weeks, Californians have probably begun to see a lot of ads for and against the seven propositions included in this year’s ballot. 

These are the seven propositions up for voting in the Nov. 8 election:

Proposition 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Proposition 1 seeks to include an amendment to the California Constitution discussing the right to reproductive freedom, which abortions and contraceptives will fall under. While the State Constitution does currently include a right to privacy, there’s no explicit definition of it. California passed the Reproductive Privacy Act in 2002, which states that “every individual has a ‘fundamental right to privacy’” regarding decisions on reproduction, which include birth control and abortion.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Planned Parenthood and other supporters of the proposition argue that it will protect the right for women to have the choice of a safe and legal abortion. Opponents of Prop 1, including several churches within the state and pro-life organizations, have expressed their disappointment regarding the state’s pro-choice stance.

Proposition 26: Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative

If Proposition 26 were to pass, casinos owned by Native American tribes could offer in-person sports betting as well as roulette and dice games. Additionally, the tribes won’t get taxed, but they must reimburse the state for the cost of regulating this betting. Any restrictions that would be imposed on the casinos must be negotiated between the state governor and each tribe, and the restrictions must also be written into each tribe’s compact with the state. 

Prop 26 would also allow four-horse race tracks to offer in-person sports betting, with participants required to be at least 21 years old. The bets would all be taxed, and any individual can file a lawsuit if they believe the laws are being violated and the state’s Justice Department declines to act.

Those who support the proposition, including many tribal groups and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, argue that legalizing sports betting for their casinos would increase traffic, which in turn would create new jobs and enable tribes to pay for healthcare and education.

Meanwhile, the CA Black Chamber of Commerce, the CA Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the many chapters for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, including their Los Angeles chapter, among other opponents, argue that legalizing sports betting would cause more gambling addictions. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other animal activists groups argue that it would revitalize the horse racing industry, which they feel would put more horses in danger.

Proposition 27: Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative

Proposition 27 also focuses on gambling, primarily stating that tribes and gaming companies can offer mobile and online sports betting to adults who are 21 or older outside tribal lands. They would also have to pay annual fees and taxes amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The collected money would be used towards three areas: the state’s regulatory costs, homelesness and gambling addiction programs. Approximately 15% of the revenue would also be given to tribes who have no involvement in sports betting whatsoever.

The proposition comes four years after the Supreme Court ruled that states could legalize sports betting, after which 35 states and Washington D.C. passed laws doing so.

Currently, the proposition has received a lot of support from homelessness groups, especially Community Forward in San Francisco, since the tax revenue would consist of hundreds of millions of dollars that would be allocated towards addressing mental health issues in addition to homelessness.

Opponents including the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and other tribal groups, state that the gambling power would go to out-of-state gaming companies and the high entry cost for online sports betting, which includes a $10 million license fee, would severely restrict the number of tribes who are able to participate.

Proposition 28: Art and Music K-12 Education Funding Initiative

If passed, Proposition 28 would require certain funds to be set aside for various programs within school districts, who would have to state in an annual report what specific programs received funding and how the money was used overall.

About 80% of the new funding would be allocated towards hiring arts and music instructors, and it’s estimated that a total of $1 billion would be set aside every year for arts and music programs. For schools with high proportions of students from low-income households, they would receive additional funding.

The California Teachers Association, labor unions and local art, music and education groups make up the proposition’s supporters. Currently, there are no known opponents for this proposition.

Proposition 29: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative

Proposition 29 deals specifically with clinics who treat patients requiring dialysis as they have reached end-stage kidney failure, losing at least 85% of their kidney function. Through this proposition, clinics would be required to have a licensed medical professional on-site during treatment, and they would also have to disclose to all physicians that have at least 5% of clinic ownership interests to patients.

The clinics would also be responsible for reporting infection data of patients to the state.

This proposition has received an overwhelming amount of over $86 million in opposition funding from state and national dialysis organizations, local medical groups and major dialysis corporations including DaVita and Fresenius. These all argue that Prop 29 is trying to get the industry to unionize its workers.

Proposition 30: Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative

If passed, Proposition 30 would implement a 1.75% tax increase on individuals earning at least $2 million annually. The revenue collected by those individuals would go towards programs that would help people buy more electric vehicles, and it would go towards improvements to state firefighting and wildfire prevention.

It’s estimated that between $3.5 billion and $5 billion would be the annual revenue collected. Additionally, 80% of this revenue would be allocated to rebates for individuals buying electric cars and to the construction of charging stations throughout the state. Residents from low and middle-income households would also get a portion of the overall revenue.

The tax would be in place for about two decades, but could be ended earlier if California is able to cut its emissions to at least 80% below its levels from 1990 for three consecutive calendar years.

Lyft, the California State Association of Electrical Workers and several politicians in northern California have voiced their support for the proposition. Newsom, the California Small Business Association and major Democratic donor Mark Heising are among those opposing the proposition.

“Prop 30 is a Trojan horse that puts corporate welfare above the fiscal welfare of our entire state,” Newsom stated in a “No on 30” ad.

Additionally, opponents argue that the $10 billion climate investment from Newsom, the $97.5 billion surplus from this year’s budget and the electric car incentive funds from President Joe Biden are sufficient enough for the state to be able to pay for everything needed to ease into the use of electric vehicles and pay for additional wildfire prevention efforts.

Proposition 31: Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum

Proposition 31 seeks to uphold Senate Bill 793, the law passed by state legislature and signed by Newsom in August 2020 that banned the sale of tobacco products, including flavors such as cotton candy, strawberry and chocolate at stores and vending machines. The bill also stated that vape pen pods, chewing tobacco and menthol cigarettes can’t be sold under the proposition.

Among the supporters are the American Lung Association, American Heart Association and the California Teachers Association. Opponents include multiple tobacco advocacy groups and Julian Cañete, the president of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.

2022 General Election Youth Poll Results

In a 2022 General Election Youth Poll conducted by Courage California, the nonprofit organization found that almost 78% of California voters between the ages of 18 and 24 in key congressional districts were planning to vote in the midterms, with over 6% stating that they probably won’t vote.

According to Jose Luis Bedolla, the chief executive officer of the Data for Social Good Foundation, the large percentage of youth voters in California planning to vote can be attributed to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade this past summer. In many polls from previous years, abortion rights were not necessarily discussed since there hadn’t been much concern over them.

“We’ve done some work in different areas to conclude that basically, it’s not only in the youth mind,” Bedolla told The Panther at an Oct. 14 virtual press conference. “It’s an intergenerational issue with respect to what we have found and what other people seem to be finding. I think youth are more motivated and more engaged because of that issue than other age groups.”

Additionally, almost 63% of youth respondents said that they planned to mail in their vote, with 20% saying they planned to vote in person.

In terms of political party affiliation, the top three parties that respondents stated they identified with were the Democratic Party (41.6%), no party preference (26.7%) and Independent (12.8%). One of the main reasons respondents said they identified as Independent or didn’t want to join a party was due to the belief that corporations and wealthy individuals have “too much influence” in either party (44%).

Other reasons included parties “only wanting to get their candidate elected” (18%) and parties being “too extreme” (15.7%).

The poll also found that the three issues of major concern to California youth voters are jobs/the economy, abortion/reproductive rights and healthcare. Inflation was a primary concern at almost 62%, with another concern being a lack of good high-paying jobs in their community (18%).

For healthcare, 69% of respondents stated that they believe it is a human right, while other responses included insurance being too expensive (23.7%) and the system being too complicated to navigate (7.3%). Over 47% of respondents stated they believe in bodily autonomy, while other respondents expressed disapproval of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade (35.6%).

More results can be found here.

Courage California partnered with the Data for Social Good Foundation and the Communities for a New California (CNC) Education Fund in September 2022 to gauge where California voters between the ages of 18 and 24 in key congressional districts currently stand in the midterm elections. The congressional districts survey consisted of the 13th, 21st, 22nd, 27th, 41st and 45th districts in Central Valley, Inland Empire, Orange County and Los Angeles.