Proposition 1
Amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This amendment does not narrow or limit the existing rights to privacy and equal protection under the California Constitution.
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.
Argument For: Yes on 1 places the fundamental right to abortion and the fundamental right to contraceptives in the Constitution. Yes on 1 protects individual choices on reproductive care and the right to choose to have an abortion, keeping medical decisions where they belong – between a patient and their provider.
Argument Against: Proposition 1 is an extreme law that allows late-term abortions at taxpayer expense up to the moment of birth – even if the baby is healthy and the mother’s health is not threatened. Current California law already guarantees a woman’s right to choose, making this extreme and costly proposal unnecessary.
Proposition 26
Allows sports wagering at certain horse racing tracks; private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws. Directs revenues to the General Fund, problem-gambling programs, enforcement.
Fiscal Impact: 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.
Argument For: Yes on 26 authorizes sports wagering in-person at tribal casinos. Limits sports wagering to adults only. Prop. 26 supports Indian self-reliance by providing revenue for tribal education, healthcare and other vital services. Prop. 26 promotes safe, responsible gaming and helps stop and prevent illegal gambling.
Argument Against: Prop. 26 is a massive expansion of gambling that will lead to more underage gambling and addiction. Prop. 26 is sponsored by five wealthy gaming tribes who want to expand their monopoly on gambling to include sports betting. At the same time, Prop. 26 will devastate other communities of color.
Proposition 27
Allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online/ mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, nonparticipating tribes. Fiscal Impact: 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.
Argument For: Proposition 27 is supported by California Tribes and homelessness and mental health experts. For the first time, Prop. 27 permanently funds housing, mental health, and addiction treatment by regulating and taxing online sports betting. Prop. 27 contains strict rules protecting minors, regular audits, and oversight by the Attorney General.
Argument Against: Prop. 27 is a deceptive scheme funded by out-of-state gambling corporations to legalize a massive expansion of online and mobile sports gambling. Prop. 27 is NOT a “solution” to homelessness. 90% of profits would go to out-of-state corporations. Prop. 27 is opposed by 50+ California Tribes.
Proposition 28
Provides additional funding from the state General Fund for arts and music education in all K–12 public schools (including charter schools).
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $1 billion annually, beginning next year, for arts education in public schools.
Argument For: Barely one in five California public schools have a full-time arts or music program. Prop. 28 provides additional funding to ensure every student in PK–12 public schools has access to arts and music education – without raising taxes. Protects existing education funding. Includes strict accountability, transparency. Parents, teachers and children support.
Argument Against: No argument against Proposition 28 was submitted.
Proposition 29
Requires physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant on site during treatment. Requires clinics to disclose physicians’ ownership interests, and report infection data.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
Argument For: Dialysis patients deserve protection under the law. Prop. 29 will help ensure they receive safe treatment in dialysis clinics under the care of a doctor or another highly trained clinician in case of emergencies, without risk of infection, and without discrimination.
Argument Against: Join dialysis patients, American Nurses Association\California, California Medical Association and patient advocates: NO on 29 – another dangerous dialysis proposition! Prop. 29 would shut down dialysis clinics and threaten the lives of 80,000 California patients who need dialysis to survive. California voters have overwhelmingly rejected similar dialysis propositions twice.
Proposition 30
Allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention.
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.
Argument For: Wildfires are devastating California. Prop. 30 taxes only the wealthiest Californians – annual income over $2 million – to fund wildfire prevention and clean air programs. Funds forest management, more firefighters and equipment. Helps consumers afford zero-emission vehicles; creates statewide charging network. Strict Accountability – audits, penalties. State firefighters, environmental groups, energy experts support.
Argument Against: Prop. 30 raises taxes by up to $90 billion for as long as 20 years, increasing costs for every Californian. Prop. 30 will severely strain our struggling electricity grid already at risk of rolling blackouts. Join taxpayers, teachers, and small businesses to reject this unnecessary tax increase.