Prop 1 – Right to abortion, contraceptives – Yes
In the recent Dobbs decision, the US Supreme Court decided the United States Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. The decision itself does not restrict abortion, but it does open the door for states to do so.
Abortion is legal by default, and California law already reaffirms its legality in the state. There is no serious threat to the status quo here, so Prop 1 is mainly symbolic, some might say a waste of time and money. Fine, but we’ve gotten to this point, so we’ll just vote yes.
Prop 26 – Expand Indian gaming – Split
Legal gambling in California currently consists of tribal casinos, card rooms, horse racing tracks, oh, and the California Lottery. In each case, the type of gambling allowed at a venue is restricted. For example, Indian casinos can only offer slot machines, lottery games, and certain card games.
Prop 26 would allow tribal casinos to offer roulette and dice games. It would also allow in-person sports betting at Indian casinos and horse racing tracks.
We were split on this one. Some of us argued that gambling is an addictive, anti-social behavior that should not be expanded. Others didn’t see how offering a few more games would make a material difference, or why we should regulate supposedly sovereign Indian tribes in this way. Mostly we don’t care and wish we weren’t asked to make this decision.
Card rooms are opposed to Prop 26, maybe because it would make them less competitive with Indian casinos, but also because a provision in Prop 26 allows gaming laws to be enforced via lawsuits filed by any individual or organization. Race tracks are really in favor of (and spending a lot of money on) Prop 26, hoping to inject life into a faltering business model that has come under increased scrutiny in recent years.
Prop 27 – Online sports betting – No
Online sports betting is currently illegal in California. If you sign in to Draft Kings from here, you will not be able to bet any actual money on the site. Prop 27 would allow Draft Kings and others to serve California residents after paying a $100 million licensing fee and partnering with a gaming tribe. The tax revenue, perhaps $500 million annually, would be earmarked for homelessness programs, gambling addiction programs, and tribal economic development.
Some of us generally oppose any expansion of gambling. We’re against most earmarks as well. But we’re especially against out-of-state companies spending lavishly to manipulate our state laws for their own obvious benefit. If this had come from the people or the legislature maybe we’d feel differently.
Prop 28 - Arts and music education earmarks - No
Let’s get this out of the way: we like arts and music education! But one thing we’ve been consistent about is we don’t like earmarks. We think the elected, professional legislators should figure out the best way to spend California’s budget, not the general population, manipulated by ads and without the time to understand the complexities of running a state the size of California.
Prop 28 is an earmark on top of an earmark: 1988’s Prop 98 mandates that about 40% of California’s budget has to be spent on education. We probably would have voted against it if we hadn’t still been in grade school, even though we really like education and think money should be spent on it. Prop 28 earmarks more education money, specifically for arts and music. We’re voting against it for the same reason.
Prop 29 – Dialysis clinics regulation – No
Does this sound familiar? We’ve already been asked to vote on this twice before: Prop 8 in 2018 and Prop 23 in 2020. On the surface it seems like a reasonable regulation for kidney dialysis clinics: require a physician assistant or higher-qualified medical professional to be on site. But behind the scenes it’s really an attempt by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to hurt, even close non-union dialysis clinics, with patients/customers as collateral damage.
There may be legitimate gripes about dialysis clinics, but patients continue to choose them for the procedure, perhaps because convenience is a big factor when you have to go in three times per week. We think patients should be allowed to make that choice.
Prop 30 – Environment tax on the rich – No
We do like the environment and we do like taxing rich people (in this case people making over $2 million per year), but we don’t like earmarks put in place by initiatives. At least this one creates a new revenue source rather than taking a piece out of the existing budget. But still, we think the legislature should perhaps do this, not the voters directly.
Prop 31 – Flavored tobacco ban – Yes
Here’s one of those initiatives that ratifies a law already passed by the legislature. So our standard call to “let the legislators legislate” would default us to a yes. In this case the law is to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products in the state.
We did have a conversation about the merits of such a ban. There are the standard calls to save the children from the addictive habit, basically coming to the conclusion that if people (even adults) want to use tobacco products, they should have to endure them in an unappealing form. The question was asked: would you also want to ban the sale of sugary alcoholic drinks like Mike’s Hard Lemonade? To the credit of one participant, he was consistent and said yes he would…and sorority girls everywhere cried out.
