California Midterm Election 2022: Breakdown of propositions on the ballot

LOS ANGELES - There are seven propositions this year on the California ballot. They range from a woman's right to have an abortion to gambling and education to healthcare.

Below is a breakdown of each proposition.

Prop. 1: Reproductive rights

Proposition 1 centers around whether to preserve reproductive health care as a constitutional right in California. If passed, the measure would explicitly prohibit interference with an individual's choice on reproductive health and guarantee the right to abortion and contraception within the state.

The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade over the summer was and continues to be one of the nation’s most debated topics. As part of the measure, it is now up to the individual states to decide on a woman’s reproductive rights and whether to allow abortion and contraception. Prop. 1 is supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom and abortion rights advocates. Newsom has been vocal about ensuring that the Golden State remains a safe haven for those seeking abortion services.

Opponents, including the Catholic Church, are concerned the measure does not specify the maximum number of weeks that an abortion can be performed during a pregnancy. The current law restricts abortion up to the point when a fetus is visible, usually around 24 weeks. In addition, abortions in the third trimester are only permitted if the mother’s life or health is at risk. If Prop. 1 passes, abortion would be permitted at any stage of pregnancy.

Prop. 26: Gambling

Proposition 26 will allow in-person roulette, dice games and sports betting on California's tribal lands. If passed, federally recognized Indian tribes would be able to run these on-site gambling activities.

In addition to running these on-site gambling events and activities, sports betting would be allowed at certain licensed horseracing tracks in four California counties for those 21 and older – and would impose a 10% tag on sports-wagering profits from these tracks.

Prop. 26, if passed, would outlaw marketing of sports betting to people 21 and under. If passed, tribes would be required to support state sports betting regulatory costs at casinos.

A look into Prop. 26 and Prop. 27

The elections are less than a month away and there is still a lot of confusion regarding the proposition on gambling, 26 and 27. FOX 11's Hal Eisner takes a look into both.

Prop. 27: Gambling

Proposition 27 will allow online and mobile sports betting outside California's tribal lands.

If passed, Californians 21 and older will be able to make sports bets online and/or on mobile apps.

Prop. 27 will require the tribes and gambling companies to pay the state for specific purposes, which includes supporting California's regulatory costs and addressing the state's homelessness. Those offering online sports betting would be required to pay the state a share of bets made. A new state unit would be created to help regulate online sports betting.

Prop. 28: Education

Proposition 28 provides additional funding for arts and music education in all K-12 public and charter schools by annually allocating from the state’s General Fund an amount equal to 1% of required state and local funding for public schools.

The General Fund pays for education, prisons, health care, and other public services. $95.5 billion from general fund is used for public schools annually. According to the Secretary of State’s office, taxes will not be raised in order to pay for the funds.

If passed, starting next year, Prop. 28 would increase state costs by $1 billion annually. Funding must be spent on arts and music education, teachers, supplies, art partnership, training and materials, according to the state.

No argument against Prop. 28 was submitted.

Prop. 29: Healthcare

Proposition 29 requires a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, with six months of relevant experience, to be on-site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics. It also requires clinics to disclose to patients all physicians with clinic ownership interests of 5% of more, requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to the state and prohibits clinics from closing or reducing services without state approval and prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on the source of payment.

According to the Secretary of State, prop. 29 would increase state and local government costs by tens of millions of dollars each year. According to the Yes on Prop. 29 campaign, Prop. 29 would help ensure dialysis patients receive safe treatment in dialysis clinics under the care of a doctor or another highly trained clinician in case of emergencies. The No on Prop. 29 campaign says Prop. 29 is another dangerous dialysis proposition that would shut down dialysis clinics and threaten patients' lives.

Prop. 30: Taxes and Transportation

The ride-share company Lyft is funding the ballot measure campaign for Proposition 30 in a battle against Governor Gavin Newsom over who should pay for the transition to electric vehicles. State regulators ordered companies like Lyft to make sure nearly all of their rides are in electric vehicles by 2030. Newsom says that Prop. 30 is Lyft’s attempt to make taxpayers pay for that.

"Don’t be fooled. Prop 30′s been advertised as a climate initiative. But in reality, it was devised by a single corporation to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company," Newsom said in a statewide TV ad. "Put simply, Prop 30 is a Trojan horse that puts corporate welfare above the fiscal welfare of our entire state."

Lyft and other supporters of Prop. 30 are proposing to increase tax by 1.75% on income earned over $2 million per year, arguing that more money is needed to engineer the state’s shift to cleaner energy. Lyft has funded almost all of the $47.8 million backing the ballot measure, which was originally proposed by environmental groups.

Prop. 30 would generate up to $5 billion in new tax money each year, and most of that money would go to programs that help people buy electric cars and install charging stations. A smaller amount would go to wildfire prevention response and prevention programs.

Both the supporters and opponents of Prop 30. say they support the switch to cleaner energy. They disagree on who should pay for it.

Prop. 31: Tobacco

California's Proposition 31 would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products. If passed, in-person stores and vending machines would be prohibited from selling flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers. Prop 31 does not ban hookah tobacco sold and used at the store, certain cigars, or loose-leaf tobacco. Stores and vending machine owners would be fined a $250 penalty for each violation of the above requirements.

Among cigarette smokers, surveys suggest about 20% of adults and about 50% of kids use menthol cigarettes. Additionally, surveys suggest most users of e-cigarettes, vape cartridges, and similar devices use flavored products.

State and local governments can have additional, stricter rules for tobacco, though they cannot change product standards. In 2016, California raised the minimum age for buying tobacco from 18 to 21. That was just a few years before the federal government followed suit in 2019.

Last year, California’s tobacco taxes raised about $2 billion. Previous ballot propositions approved by the voters direct most of these revenues to specific programs, with the majority going to health care programs, in addition to early childhood programs and tobacco control efforts, such as preventing tobacco sales to kids.

In 2020, the Legislature passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB-793 to ban in-person stores and vending machines from selling most flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers. However, it did not go into effect because a referendum on the law qualified for this November's ballot. That means the law is on hold until voters decide whether to put it into effect.