2022 State Ballot Propositions
Below are summaries of the upcoming November Ballot Initiatives. We will update with OCTax's position as applicable.
PROP 1
Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom
Prop 1 would amend the California State Constitution to prohibit the state from interfering with a person’s right to an abortion or the right to contraceptives.
Fiscal Impact: There is no direct fiscal effect. Whether or not a court might interpret the proposition beyond existing law is unclear. If a court finds that the proposition expands certain rights, there could be fiscal effects to the state.
A YES vote would amend the California Constitution to include the right to an abortion and to contraceptives.
A NO vote would not change the California Constitution. These rights, however, would continue to exist under other state law.
Prop 26 would allow in-person sports betting, roulette and dice games at racetracks and tribal casinos. The age restriction at racetracks to participate in sports betting would be 21 years of age and older. Age restrictions at Indian casinos to be negotiated. Sports betting would be allowed on professional, college, and amateur sports except for high school and California college teams. A tax of 10% on all profits would be divided: 15% to the California Dept of Health for research, development, and implementation of programs for gambling prevention and providing grants to local government for the same. 15% to the Bureau of Gambling Control for enforcement and implementation of sports wagering within the state. 70% to the STATE GENERAL FUND
Fiscal Impacts: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
A YES vote would allow racetracks and tribal casinos to offer in-person sports betting. Tribal casinos could also offer roulette and dice games if permitted by individual tribal agreements with the state. People and entities would also have a new way to seek enforcement of certain state gambling laws.
A NO will continue to make sports betting illegal in California. Tribal casinos would continue to be unable to offer roulette and dice games. No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
Support: Indian Tribes ($124 Million raised thru 9/2022)
Oppose: Private Casinos and the cities they are in ($43 million raise thru 9/2022)
PROP 26
Allow In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, and Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands
PROP 27
Allow Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands
Prop 27 would allow licensed tribes and gaming companies to offer mobile and online sports betting for adults 21 and older outside Native American tribal lands. Gaming companies could only offer sports betting if they made a deal with a tribe. The proposition also creates a new division within the state’s Justice Department to regulate online sports wagering. Revenue from licensing fees, renewals and a sports wagering tax minus some expenses would go into the new California Sports Betting Trust Fund and would be divided: 85% to support homelessness and gambling addiction programs. 15% to smaller tribes not involved in online sports betting.
Fiscal Impacts: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but not likely to exceed $500 million annually. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually.
A YES vote would license tribes and gambling companies to offer online sports betting to people 21 years of age or old on non-tribal lands in California. A new state office would be created to regulate this betting and the state would receive a share of sports bets made.
A NO would continue to make sports betting illegal in California. No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
Support: Big City Mayors, Online gambling companies, MLB, Smaller Indian tribes ($169 million raised thru 9/2022)
Oppose: Big Indian Tribes, Democratic, Republican, Peace and Freedom Political Parties ($214 Million raised thru (9/2022)
Prop 28 requires the state to provide additional funding to increase arts instruction and/or arts programs in public schools. The amount required each year would equal 1 percent of the constitutionally required state and local funding that public schools received the year before. This would be in addition to funding required under Prop 98. Additional funding would be distributed to public schools based on enrollment in preschool and K-12. Of the total amount, 70 percent would go to schools based on their share of statewide enrollment. The remaining 30 percent would go to schools based on their share of low-income students enrolled statewide. Arts education is to include, dance, media arts, music, theater, and visual arts.
Schools with 500 or more students would distribute 80% of the additional funding to staff salaries. 20% for training and materials
Fiscal Impacts: Increased state costs of about $1 billion annually, beginning next year, for arts education in public schools.
A YES vote would provide additional funding specifically for arts education in public schools.
A NO vote would not provide funding for arts education in public schools. Instead, they would continue to depend on state and local budget decisions.
Support: CTA ($9.3 million raised thru 9/2022)
Oppose: No registered opposition
PROP 28
Provide Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools
PROP 29
Require On-Site Licensed Medical Professionals at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements
Prop 29 is the third ballot initiative brought forward by unions since 2018 targeting dialysis centers. It would require kidney dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant with six months of relevant experience available on site or, in some cases, via telehealth. It also requires clinics to report infection data to the state and publicly list physicians who have ownership interest of 5% or more in a clinic. The measure would prohibit clinics from closing or reducing services without state approval and from refusing treatment to people based on insurance type.
Fiscal Impacts: Increased state and local government costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, as well as increased medical costs to patients
A YES vote would require chronic dialysis clinics to have a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on-site during all patient treatment hours.
A NO vote would not require clinics to have a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on-site during all patient treatment hours.
Support: SEIU ($8 million thru 9/2022 from member’s dues)
Oppose: Dialysis Clinics, Cal Chamber, CMA ($77.7 million raised thru 9/2022)
Prop 30 is a response to the California Air Resources Board requiring that all ride-share companies convert 90% of ride-share vehicle miles traveled in CA to electric vehicles by 2030.
This new tax on high income taxpayers beginning in January 2023 will subsidize the purchase of zero-emission vehicles, charging stations and infrastructure, and fund wildfire prevention and suppression programs
The tax will require taxpayers with income above $2 million each year to pay an additional tax of 1.75% on the share of their income above $2 million. This additional tax would end in January 2043 and could end earlier if California is able to cut its emissions to at least 80% below 1990 levels for three consecutive calendar years. Tax dollars would be divided: 35% into a Vehicles Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund, 45% into Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund, and 20% into a Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund
Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities.
A YES vote would create an additional tax of 1.75% on personal income above $2 million annually. The revenue collected would support ZEV programs and wildfire response and prevention.
A NO vote would not change taxes on personal income over $2 million annually.
Support: California State Association of Electrical Workers, California Environmental Voters ($37 million received thru 9/2022. $15 million of that from Lyft)
Oppose: Gov Newsom, CTA and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ($11.5 million received thru 9/2022)
PROP 30
Provide Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million
PROP 31
Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products
Prop 31 is a referendum on a 2020 law that would prohibit the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products. This initiative will decide whether to overturn a 2020 law (SB 793) that prohibits the sale of some flavored tobacco products. As on all referendum initiatives be careful how you vote. A yes vote will confirm the law and prohibit sale of the products. A no vote would overturn the law and allow sales to take place.
Fiscal Impact: Decreased state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually.
A YES vote would prohibit in-person stores and vending machines from selling most flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers.
A NO vote would allow in-person stores and vending machines to sell flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, as allowed under other federal, state, and local rules.
Support: Governor Newsom. CTA, Kaiser, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association ($5.9 million raised thru 9/2022)
Oppose: Republican Party, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Tobacco Companies ($20.7 million raised thru 9/2022)