What does a YES Vote mean for the 2022 Propositions on the California Ballot?
Before the November election, we thought it might be beneficial to give a brief non-partisan rundown on the current propositions for California, particularly after so many Californians were blindsided by the loss of the parent-child exemption from property tax reassessment by Proposition 19 two years ago. The information herein was derived from Ballotpedia.org. The Propositions are in numerical order and not in order of deemed importance. However, you vote, we hope this will help you make an informed decision.
Proposition 1: Constitutional Amendment Regarding Abortion
Language from the Ballot:
A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to prohibit the state from interfering with or denying an individual’s reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to an abortion and a right to contraceptives.
A “no” vote opposes this amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution.
A further explanation:
A YES vote makes it a constitutional right to have an abortion with no restrictions on when that abortion can occur. The specific language added is:
SEC. 1.1. The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.[8]
A NO vote means existing law that currently allows abortions with some restrictions will still control. The current law states that abortion is legal in California up to fetal viability and after viability if the procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.
In 2002, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which added language to the state statute declaring that women have a "fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose and to obtain an abortion."
Proposition 26: Legalizing Sports Betting
Language from the Ballot:
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to (i) legalize sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California; (ii) tax profits derived from sports betting at racetracks at 10%; and (iii) legalize roulette and dice games, such as craps, at tribal casinos.
A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California and roulette and dice games at tribal casinos.
A further explanation:
On May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the federal government could not require states to prohibit sports betting, thereby overturning the federal ban on sports betting and allowing states to legalize sports betting.
The ballot measure would define sports betting as wagering on the results of professional, college, or amateur sport and athletic events, with the exception of high school sports and events featuring a California college team. Individuals would need to be 21 years of age to engage in legal sports betting.
The ballot measure would enact a tax of 10 percent on profits derived from sports betting at racetracks. The state government would be required to distribute the revenue as follows: (a) 15 percent to the California Department of Health for researching, developing, and implementing programs for problem gambling prevention and mental health and providing grants to local governments to address problem gambling and mental health; (b) 15 percent to the Bureau of Gambling Control for enforcing and implementing sports wagering and other forms of gaming within the state; and (c) 70 percent to the General Fund.
In 2016, Indian gaming in California directly and indirectly generated the following total economic and fiscal impacts on the California economy: 124,300 jobs; $20 billion in output; $9 billion in wages to employees; $3.4 billion in taxes and revenue sharing payments to federal, state, and local governments, including nearly $1 billion to the State of California and $378 million to local governments.
Horse racing represents one of the oldest forms of wagering, existing in California for almost a century. Over 17,000 licensed jobs are tied to the horse racing industry. According to the California Horse Racing Board, over $3 billion is wagered each year. This brings in millions of dollars in revenue to the state, to the world's premier equine chemistry laboratory, the Kenneth L. Maddy Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory at the University of California, Davis, and to local governments from sales taxes.
A YES vote imposes a 10% STATE gambling tax in addition to the already existing FEDERAL gambling tax of 24%. A Yes vote also allows California Indian casinos to allow betting on sports activities, roulette games and games played with dice, which are currently not allowed. Currently, any STATE gambling winnings are treated as simply “income” which would then fall within whatever your current tax bracket it (1-13.3%). This Proposition ensures that the tax bracket on gambling winnings IS 10% for state taxes.
A NO vote does not allow California casinos to enter into sports betting, roulette games and games played with dice and any future gambling winnings at the STATE level shall continue to be taxed at your current state tax bracket.
Proposition 27: Legalizing Sports Betting & Homeless Initiative
Language from the Ballot:
A "yes" vote supports legalizing online and mobile sports betting for persons 21 years of age or older, establishing regulations for the mobile sports betting industry, imposing a 10% tax on sports betting revenues and licensing fees, and allocating tax revenue to an account for homelessness programs and an account for tribes not operating sports betting.
A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California.
A further explanation:
Like Proposition 26, this initiative would impose a 10% STATE gambling tax. However, this proposition expands gambling to include ONLINE and MOBILE sports betting from companies with contracts or operating agreements with a gaming tribe or qualified gaming entity. A YES vote would allow gambling to occur outside of Indian lands.
The 10% STATE gambling tax would be distributed 85% to the California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account. The remaining 15% of the tax shall be distributed to the Tribal Economic Development Account. Audits shall occur every 2 years and shall not cost more than $600,000 per audit, adjusted for inflation.
A Yes vote expands gambling to occur online and via mobile phone and would impose a California state gambling tax of 10%.
A No vote ensures that gambling can only occur on Tribal lands and the State income tax on gambling winning shall continue to be taxed at your state tax bracket.
Proposition 28: Art & Music K-12 Education Funding Initiative
Language from the Ballot:
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to:
· require an annual source of funding for K-12 public schools for arts and music education equal to, at minimum, 1% of the total state and local revenues that local education agencies receive under Proposition 98;
· distribute a portion of the additional funding based on a local education agency's share of economically disadvantaged students; and
· require schools with 500 or more students to use 80% of the funding for employing teachers and 20% to training and materials.
A "no" vote opposes requiring an annual source of funding for K-12 public schools for arts and music education equal to, at minimum, 1% of the total state and local revenues that local education agencies receive under Proposition 98.
A further explanation:
Proposition 28 would require a minimum source of annual funding for K-12 public schools, including charter schools, to fund arts education programs. The annual minimum amount established by the law would be equal to, at minimum, 1% of the total state and local revenues that local education agencies received under Proposition 98 (1988) during the prior fiscal year. The minimum under the proposed law would be in addition to the funding required by Proposition 98. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the ballot initiative would likely result in increased spending of $800 million to $1 billion each fiscal year.[2]
In 1988, Californians approved Proposition 98 by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3%. Proposition 98 amended the state constitution to require a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education (kindergarten through two-year community college), which is referred to as the minimum guarantee. Proposition 98 established two formulas or tests to determine the minimum guarantee, which is the highest funding level produced by Test 1 or Test 2. Test 1 links the minimum guarantee to about 40% of the state General Fund, which is equal to California's 1986-87 funding level of public education. Test 2 calculates the minimum guarantee by adjusting the prior year's minimum guarantee by student attendance and changes in the cost of living.
In 1990, the state legislature referred Proposition 111 to the ballot where it was approved with 52% of the vote. Proposition 111 added a third formula, Test 3, which considers student attendance, the cost of living, and changes in the General Fund revenue.[3]
The minimum guarantee for 2021-2022 was $93.7 billion, which was determined using Test 1. The minimum guarantee for 2020-2021, which was $70.9 billion, was the largest year-over-year percentage increase (31.8%) since Proposition 98 was adopted.
A YES vote guarantees that all public schools, including charter schools, spend at least 1% of the state and local tax revenues it receives on ARTS Programs.
A NO vote does not provide a mandate to fund arts programs and leaves it up to each school to budget resources as they deem appropriate.
Proposition 29: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
Language from the Ballot:
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.
A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.
A further explanation:
Proposition 29 would enact staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics, which incur more administrative costs, including:[1]
· requiring clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant - with at least six months of experience with end-stage renal disease care - onsite during patient treatments;
· requiring clinics to report dialysis-related infections to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH);
· requiring clinics to provide patients with a list of physicians with an ownership interest of 5% or more in the clinic;
· requiring clinics to provide the CDPH with a list of persons with ownership interest of 5% or more in the clinic; and
· requiring clinics to obtain the CDPH's written consent before closing or substantially reducing services to patients.
The ballot initiative would also prohibit clinics from refusing to care for a patient based on the patient's form of payment, whether the patient is an individual payer, the patient's health insurer, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, or Medicare.
How did Proposition 29 relate to Proposition 23 (2020) and Proposition 8 (2018)?
In 2020, 63.4% of voters rejected Proposition 23, which was also sponsored by SEIU-UHW. Proposition 23 would have required chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.[2]
In 2018, SEIU-UHW also sponsored Proposition 8, which was defeated with 59.9% of voters rejecting it. Proposition 8 would have required dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients or patients' payers for revenue above 115% of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare improvements.[3]
A YES Vote ensures that clinics are now required to have on site a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant at all times, while the current law does not require that oversight. In addition, it mandates that a clinic that would normally close its doors, if not profitable, cannot close without written consent from the CDPH. Each clinic would be required to give quarterly reports to the department and provide any such information the department deems appropriate. Failure to provide the report may give rise to a penalty of no more than a $100,000, per incident. A yes vote, increases the costs of operating existing clinics and thus likely, the cost to the patient, but also ensures more transparency, quality control and reporting.
A No vote continues current law to allow dialysis centers to operate without a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on site at all times. A doctor may be present, but is not required to be present. In addition, there is less informational reporting requirements and disclosures.
Proposition 30: Tax on Income Above $2M for Zero emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative
Language from the Ballot:
A "yes" vote supports increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs.
A "no" vote opposes increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs.
A further explanation:
Proposition 30 would increase the income tax by an additional 1.75% on income above $2 million for individuals. Currently, income above $2 million for individuals is taxed at a rate of 13.3% in California. The additional tax would take effect on January 1, 2023. The initiative provides that the tax would end on the earliest of the following dates:[1]
· January 1, 2043, or
· January 1 after three consecutive calendar years after January 1, 2030, of statewide emissions reduced by 80% of 1990 levels.
Revenue from the increased income tax would be appropriated into the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund (CCCATF). It would then be allocated to the following three sub-funds: Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund (35% of revenue), Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund (45% of revenue), and Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund (20% of revenue). The sub-funds would fund zero-emission vehicles, charging stations, and infrastructure, as well as hiring and training firefighters.
California has the highest state tax rate at 13.3% now, with Hawaii as second highest at 11%. One argument is the people making 2 million of reportable income should easily be able to afford to pay this extra tax. The flip side to that argument is that wealthy people who do not like this tax can move away to a more affordable state and take their business and employee opportunities with them. Some of the large businesses that have moved some or all operations out of California lately are Tesla, Chevron, NortonLifeLock, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and Oracle.
A YES Vote, ensures that top earners in California making more than $2M shall pay a STATE income tax of 15.05% (13.3+1.75). This tax would lapse at the latest by 2043.
A NO vote would continue the top earners in California to pay the current top tax bracket of 13.3%.
Proposition 31: Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum
Language from the Ballot:
A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products.
A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), thus keeping the sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state.
A further explanation:
The California State Legislature passed SB 793 in August 2020. The legislation received support from most legislative Democrats (84 of 89) and a quarter of legislative Republicans (8 of 30). One legislator voted against the bill, and the remaining legislators were absent or abstained. State Sen. Jerry Hill (D-13), the legislative sponsor of SB 793, said, "Using candy, fruit and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new generation into nicotine addiction while keeping longtime users hooked. SB 793 breaks Big Tobacco’s death grip."[2] The California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, which opposed SB 793, described the flavored tobacco ban as "misguided policy that will do more harm than good" and "hurt small businesses, eliminate necessary tax revenue, and perpetuate dangerous and avoidable police interactions in our communities."
Opponents of Proposition 31 seek to overturn Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which was signed into law on August 28, 2020. SB 793 was designed to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, with exceptions for hookah tobacco, loose leaf tobacco, and premium cigars. Retailers would be fined $250 for each sale violating the law.
The proponents of SB 793 (Vote Yes) argue this law is meant to protect our children because tobacco companies are using flavors to appeal to the younger generation. The opponents of the proposition want the company to continue to expand it’s offerings to include flavored tobacco in cigarettes etc, which are already allowed in cigars.
Excerpts of the Full Text:
“Characterizing flavor” means a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product. Characterizing flavors include, but are not limited to, tastes or aromas relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice. A tobacco product shall not be determined to have a characterizing flavor solely because of the use of additives or flavorings or the provision of ingredient information. Rather, it is the presence of a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, as described in the first sentence of this definition, that constitutes a characterizing flavor.
(4) “Flavored tobacco product” means any tobacco product that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor.
(5) “Hookah” means a type of waterpipe, used to smoke shisha or other tobacco products, with a long flexible tube for drawing aerosol through water. Components of a hookah may include heads, stems, bowls, and hoses.
(8) “Loose leaf tobacco” consists of cut or shredded pipe tobacco, usually sold in pouches, excluding any tobacco product which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes, including roll-your-own cigarettes.
(10) “Premium cigar” means any cigar that is handmade, is not mass produced by use of mechanization, has a wrapper that is made entirely from whole tobacco leaf, and has a wholesale price of no less than twelve dollars ($12). A premium cigar does not have a filter, tip, or nontobacco mouthpiece and is capped by hand.
(15) “Tobacco product flavor enhancer” means a product designed, manufactured, produced, marketed, or sold to produce a characterizing flavor when added to a tobacco product.
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product if a manufacturer or any of the manufacturer’s agents or employees, in the course of their agency or employment, has made a statement or claim directed to consumers or to the public that the tobacco product has or produces a characterizing flavor, including, but not limited to, text, color, images, or all, on the product’s labeling or packaging that are used to explicitly or implicitly communicate that the tobacco product has a characterizing flavor.
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the sale of flavored shisha tobacco products by a hookah tobacco retailer if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The hookah tobacco retailer has a valid license to sell tobacco products
(2) The hookah tobacco retailer does not permit any person under 21 years of age to be present or enter the premises at any time.
(3) The hookah tobacco retailer shall operate in accordance with all relevant state and local laws relating to the sale of tobacco products.
(4) If consumption of tobacco products is allowed on the premises of the hookah tobacco retailer, the hookah tobacco retailer shall operate in accordance with all state and local laws relating to the consumption of tobacco products on the premises of a tobacco retailer, including, but not limited to, Section 6404.5 of the Labor Code.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not apply to sales of premium cigars sold in cigar lounges where products are purchased and consumed only on the premises.
(e) Subdivision (b) does not apply to loose leaf tobacco or premium cigars.
(f) A tobacco retailer, or agent or employee of a tobacco retailer, who violates this section is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each violation of this section.
A YES Vote, ensures that the legislature’s vote to ban flavored tobacco products, with exceptions for hookah, cigars and loose leaf tobacco prevails.
A NO Vote, allows all companies to continue to make tobacco products that are deemed to have flavors, like fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice
