Next Tuesday, the California midterm elections will give voters the chance to weigh in on seven propositions addressing issues ranging from reproductive rights to flavored tobacco products. Here is a rundown of the measures up for consideration and what they mean for California residents.
Prop 1: Abortion
Prop 1 will ask California voters whether or not the state should codify abortion rights into the California State Constitution. A “yes” vote supports the amendment to cement abortion into the state constitution, disallowing the state to interfere with a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion. A “no” vote opposes abortion’s codification in the state constitution, leaving reproductive rights up to existing laws and statutes.
The Democratic Party, Peace and Freedom Party, as well as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Dianne Feinstein have voiced their support for Prop 1. Over $14 million have been contributed to support the proposition from organizations like Yes on Prop 1, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Newsom for California Governor 2022. The Republican Party has opposed the proposition, with almost $300,000 contributed by committees like Stop Prop 1.
“It’s definitely frustrating that the topic is up for vote,” said Sabrina Dimesa, a senior majoring in economics from Hermosa Beach, California. “I feel like that is a right that should be protected regardless — it’s an inalienable right.”
Recent polling suggests that 69% supported the measure, while 25% opposed it.
Prop 26 & Prop 27: Sports Wagering
Both propositions look to expand the availability of sports gambling in California.
Prop 26 would legalize sports betting on Native American territorial lands and race tracks across the state. A “yes” vote supports the legalization of sports gambling on Native American territories and racetracks in the state. A “no” vote opposes this legalization, maintaining sports gambling’s illegal status.
Prop 27 would allow licensed tribes and gambling companies to offer online sports betting on mobile devices. Additionally, 10% of the sports bets would go toward addressing homelessness and assisting those with gambling addiction problems. A small portion of the money raised will also go to tribes not involved in online sports betting. A “yes” vote supports the legalization of online gambling, while a “no” vote opposes it.
“Bizarrely, what is at its core a proposition about legalizing sports gambling seems to the outsider to be about homelessness,” said Douglas Becker, USC associate teaching professor of political science and international relations. “It really has very little to do with homelessness, and I have to admit being very frustrated with that…It just seems like a strange policy perspective there.”
Prop 26 has received support from the Peace and Freedom Party, with over $130 million in contributions from organizations including the Pechanga Band of Indians and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Prop 26 has received opposition from the Republican Party, with over $43 million raised by No on 26, the California Commerce Club and other organizations.
Prop 27 has garnered additional opposition from Newsom, both the Democratic and Republican parties and the Peace and Freedom Party. Organizations like Yes on 26, No on 27 and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians have contributed to the almost $250 million opposing the proposition.
Recent polling suggests that neither measure will pass.
Prop 28: Public School Arts Funding
This proposition would nearly double California’s funding for public education’s arts and music programs, sending 30% of the allotted funding to schools serving low-income students for years to come. A “yes” vote would support the increased budget for arts education, while a “no” vote would oppose this increase in funding.
The measure has garnered support from the Democratic Party, The Yes on 28 Committee, and SEIU California. There has been no official opposition to this proposition. Over $10 million was contributed to support the proposition from Yes on 28, Hollywood stars like Sylvester Stallone and Barbara Streisand, as well as from teachers unions.
Prop 29: Kidney Dialysis Clinics
Proposition 29 would require dialysis clinics to have an on-site physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant; report data on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care. This measure is similar to Prop 8 and Prop 23, which were rejected in California in 2018 and 2020 respectively. A “yes” vote would support these new provisions to dialysis clinics, while a “no” vote would oppose them.
The measure has garnered support from the Democratic Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection, with almost $8 million raised for the proposition. It has received opposition from the Republican Party and organizations like the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and the California Chamber of Commerce, who have raised almost $90 million against the measure.
Prop 30: Wealth tax for zero-emission vehicle programs
Proposition 30 aims to tax wealthy Californians who make more than $2 million per year in income. The 1.75% tax will be used to fund zero-emission vehicle projects, charging stations and funding for wildfire prevention programs. A “yes” vote would support this wealth tax, while a “no” vote would oppose it.
Prop 30 has garnered support from the Democratic party, with nearly $50 million raised by groups like Yes on 39 and Lyft Inc. The Republican Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and Newsom have openly opposed the proposition, with almost $25 million raised by No on 30 and other institutions to lobby against it.
“I find it interesting that the political leadership like Gavin Newsom has opposed it,” said Becker. “If it’s green, I would think Californians would vote for it — certainly students at USC [would].”
Polling shows that 41% supported the proposition, while 52% opposed it.
Prop 31: Flavored tobacco
This proposition poses the question to voters over whether or not SB 793 should be repealed or upheld in California. SB 793 was proposed in 2020 and aimed to ban flavored tobacco products across the state, with a $250 fine for those who commit an offense. A “yes” vote upholds SB 793, banning the sale of flavored tobacco products. A “no” vote repeals SB 793, allowing flavored tobacco products to be sold.
The proposition has garnered support from Newsom, the Democratic Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and the California Teachers Association, with over $35 million contributed by Yes on 31, Michael Bloomberg and others. The Republican Party and a myriad of tobacco brands have opposed the proposition, raising over $23 million against the proposition.
“Prohibition will not work,” said Daphne Yaman, a junior majoring in journalism. “It’s a matter of marketing toward a younger audience. I think that’s the problem, but I don’t think that banning the sale of them would benefit anybody.”
Recent polling suggests that the measure will pass.
Registered California voters can cast their ballot from now until Tuesday, November 8.