Now Reading
California Ballot Measures: What You Need to Know
Sunday, August 07, 2022

California Ballot Measures: What You Need to Know

Much is expected of the California voter. 

In any given election year, we may be asked to dust off our labor lawyer hats, brush up on oil and gas regulations, reacquaint ourselves with decades of tax policy, or analyze infrastructure funding. We may have to weigh the moral pros and cons of capital punishment, marriage equality or pig protection and — over and over again — oversee all things dialysis clinic.

This November is no different. Voters will be asked to consider seven thorny policy proposals, from abortion to zero emission vehicles. Many more failed to qualify for the ballot. What are these ballot measures really about? How did they make their way onto the ballot in the first place? And how did Californians first fall in love with direct democracy? 

First, what didn’t make it: A proposed increase to the state minimum wage failed to gather enough verified signatures by a deadline on Thursday. A proposed constitutional amendment that would have ended involuntary servitude for prisoners, if approved by the state legislature and by voters, was effectively killed after the state assembly adjourned before voting on the amendment. Proponents of a ballot measure that would have reduced single-use plastics pulled the measure as a similar measure with shared goals cleared the state legislature.

Also on Thursday, California passed a record-breaking $308 billion state budget that includes refunds to taxpayers ranging from $350 to $1050, devotes resources to abortion access, and expands undocumented immigrants’ access to healthcare, among other investments. 

What’s on your November ballot?

After months of signature gathering, fundraising and legislative wrangling, we have details on the ballot measures that you can vote on this fall.

Putting abortion safeguards in the California constitution: After the news leaked in early May that the U.S. Supreme Court was planning to rule that the federal constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to an abortion — and it did reverse the five-decade-old precedent on June 24 — California’s top Democrats, vowing to “fight like hell,” proposed adding the protection to the state constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was introduced in the Legislature in early June and was passed with the overwhelming support of both chambers by the end of the month. If approved by the voters, it would bar the state from denying or interfering with a person’s right to choose an abortion and contraceptives.

California has long been a safe haven for abortion access. In 1969 the state Supreme Court ruled that the California constitution’s right to privacy implies the right to an abortion. Reproductive access is also protected by statute. Supporters hope this amendment will reiterate that policy more explicitly and render it harder to reverse in the future, though some legal scholars say the language is still too ambiguous

Legalizing sports gambling, two ways: After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning state-regulated sports betting, two big-spending interests stepped up with California legalization proposals.

The first would allow Californians to bet on sports and other competitions online, but only through certified gaming tribes and large, well-established online betting companies. The measure, funded by industry giants FanDuel and DraftKings, would potentially direct hundreds of millions of dollars in fee revenue to housing and services for homeless Californians.

The other measure, supported by some of the state’s tribal governments, would only legalize sports betting in-person at tribal casinos and designated horse tracks. The measure, which would also allow tribes to offer roulette and other dice games, would raise potentially tens of millions of dollars for the state budget, most of which would be spent at the discretion of the governor and Legislature.

Kidney clinic rules, third time a charm? This measure slaps dialysis clinics with a host of new restrictions, including a requirement that a doctor, nurse practitioner or a physician assistant be on site during all treatment hours. Centers would also be required to get state approval before shuttering or reducing services and to publicly list any doctors who have at least a 5% ownership stake in a clinic. Sound familiar? That’s because the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union supporting this measure, has tried and failed to persuade voters to support new dialysis center regulations twice before, in 2018 and 2020, over vehement and very costly industry opposition. 

See Also

Extra school funding for arts and music: Sponsored by former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent Austin Beutner, this measure would require the state to set aside a share of its revenue — likely between $800 million to $1 billion per year — for arts and education classes. The new money would be disproportionately reserved for schools with many low-income students to hire new arts staff. 

Millionaires paying for electric cars: This measure would impose a new 1.75% tax on any individual’s income of more than $2 million per year to raise between $3 billion to $4.5 billion each year to fund a collection of greenhouse gas reducing initiatives. Most of the money would go toward new incentives for Californians to buy zero-emission vehicles and to build new electric charging or hydrogen fueling stations. A quarter of the new money would go toward wildfire fighting and prevention efforts. 

Reconsidering a flavored tobacco ban: In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill banning the sale of all flavored tobacco products, whether smoked, chewed or vaped. The tobacco industry gathered enough signatures to ask voters to overturn the law with this referendum.

Garrett Leahy contributed to this report

  • “Millionaires paying for electric cars: This measure would impose a new 1.75% tax on any individual’s income of more than $2 million per year to raise between $3 billion to $4.5 billion each year to fund a collection of greenhouse gas reducing initiatives.” Are you kidding me? I will vote NO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.