Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

What's On The Ballot? Here's a look at California's 2022 Propositions

Should California change the state constitution to include the right to choose to have an abortion or use contraceptives? Legalize online sports betting in the state? Or ban the sale of flavored tobacco products?

Those are just some of the things that voters will be asked to weigh in on this November for the seven propositions on the California ballot. While we at CapRadio will be reporting on these more up until Nov. 3, we wanted to give you a quick overview now on what each measure covers and what a "yes" or "no" vote will mean.

Here are the basics of what you need to know about each proposition (including videos from our colleagues at CalMatters.)

Proposition 1: Reproductive rights constitutional amendment 

Proposition 1 would add the right to reproductive freedom to the California Constitution. That means the right to choose to have an abortion and to choose whether or not to take contraceptives would be a constitutional right in California. While state law already grants people the right to an abortion, reproductive rights advocates say adding it to the constitution may provide greater protections against potential future abortion restrictions The amendment was proposed after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion earlier this year and left the decision up to the states.

✅ A yes vote would change the California constitution to expressly include the right to choose to have an abortion or use contraceptives.

❌ A no vote would not add these rights and the state constitution would remain unchanged, though abortion would still be legal in California.

— Nicole Nixon

Proposition 26: Sports betting at tribal casinos

Proposition 26 would legalize in-person sports gambling at Cailfornia’s four horse racetracks and 66 tribal casinos. The measure, however, would ban wagering on certain sports, including high school games and those in which California college teams participate.

Prop 26 requires the participating racetracks and casinos to pay for the state’s regulatory costs. The measure’s fiscal effect is uncertain, though it could potentially result in tens of millions of dollars in state revenue, according to an independent analysis by the state’s Legislative Analyst Office. Legalizing sports betting could mean people spend less on lottery games or shopping, potentially lowering other tax revenues, the LAO said.

About 40% of the state revenue would be spent on K-12 schools and community colleges, while 60% would be used to regulate and enforce state sports betting and gambling laws and other state priorities, according to the LAO analysis.

✅ A yes vote on this measure would legalize in-person sports gambling at horse racetracks and tribal casinos.

❌ A no vote would leave those actions prohibited.

— Chris Nichols

Proposition 27: Online sports betting

Proposition 27 would allow California’s tribes or gambling companies to offer online sports betting, including on mobile devices. All sports wagering is currently illegal in the state. Tribes or companies offering online wagering would be required to pay for state regulatory costs.

In addition, Proposition 27 would create a new online sports betting regulatory unit within the California Department of Justice, along with new strategies for reducing illegal online sports betting.

The measure would increase state revenue from sports betting payments and penalties, but it’s unclear by how much. It could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year, but likely not more than $500 million annually, according to an independent analysis by the state’s Legislative Analyst.

That tax revenue would be used first to pay for regulatory costs. Once those are paid, 85% of the remaining money would be spent on homelessness services on gambling addiction programs, according to the LAO.

✅ A yes vote on this measure would allow online sports betting from tribes or gambling companies.

❌ A no vote would keep those activities illegal in the state.

— Chris Nichols

Proposition 28: K-12 arts education funding

Proposition 28 would require California to establish an annual source of funding for arts and music education in all public K-12 schools, including charter schools. The money would come from the school’s general fund, and would be the equivalent of — at minimum — 1% of the already-required state and local funding for public schools.

Currently, arts and music education in elementary and middle schools in California is funded through the discretion of local educational agencies. If the proposition passes, 70% of the funding would be distributed to schools based on their share of statewide enrollment. The other 30% would be distributed to schools based on their share of low-income students across the state. For local educational agencies with 500 or more students, the proposition also requires at least 80% of the additional funding be spent on hiring arts and music education teachers.

Local educational agencies would need to publish an annual audit on their website certifying the money they received went to arts and music education by detailing the programs funded, the number of staff employed, the number of students served and the number of school sites using the funding. In its analysis, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the proposition would increase state spending by $800 million to $1 billion each fiscal year. It would not, however, increase state taxes.

✅ A yes vote on this measure would create an annual stream of state funding for public K-12 arts and music education, focused on funding staff and supporting arts and music education in more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. It would also require data about the funding’s usage and impact to be reported annually.

❌ A no vote on this measure would continue to make arts and music education funding contingent on local decisions.

— Janelle Salanga

Proposition 29: Dialysis regulations 

This measure would require kidney dialysis clinics to have a licensed physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on-site during dialysis treatment. It would also require clinics to report infections to the state. This is the third time California voters will be voting on such a measure in recent years, after similar proposals were defeated in 2018 and 2020.

✅ A yes vote would require dialysis clinics to have a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on-site.

❌ A no vote would mean no change in how dialysis centers are operated.

— Nicole Nixon

Proposition 30: Income tax for electric cars

Proposition 30 seeks to increase taxes for individuals who earn over $2 million a year and use that money to further fund programs aimed at reducing air pollution and preventing wildfires.

If passed, those with a personal income exceeding $2 million will see an increase in taxes starting January 2023. This would entail an additional 1.75% on the share of their income over $2 million. This additional tax would end by January 2043, or whenever California is able to drop greenhouse gas emissions statewide to a certain level before that date.

State analysts estimate that this would raise between $3.5 and $5 billion annually. About 80% of the revenue would go toward helping people, businesses and governments pay for zero-emissions vehicles — otherwise known as electric cars — and charging stations for those vehicles. The remaining 20% would go toward wildfire response and prevention, which includes hiring and retaining firefighters.

✅ A yes vote on this measure would authorize the state to tax individuals with a personal income exceeding $2 million.

❌ A no vote on this measure would prevent the state from implementing the tax.

— Manola Secaira

Proposition 31: Flavored tobacco ban

Proposition 31 is a referendum on a law passed by the Legislature in 2020 to ban the sale of many flavored tobacco products such as e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and menthol cigarettes. Flavored hookah tobacco, cigars and loose leaf tobacco could continue to be sold even if the law takes effect. If approved, the state could lose roughly $100 million in annual revenue from tobacco sales taxes.

✅ A yes vote would allow this law to go into effect, thereby banning many flavored tobacco products from being sold in California.

❌ A no vote would reject this law and allow flavored products to continue to be sold.

— Nicole Nixon

To provide a trusted and indispensable source of information, music, and entertainment while strengthening the civic and cultural life of the communities we serve.