California propositions, November 2022 ballot edition

[Dan Druff]

There are only 7 propositions which have made it onto the California ballot in November 2022. These measures often make drastic changes to California law, sometimes taking effect immediately. These are arguably more impactful to the everyday person's lives than the person elected governor. Some propositions cause a big change, and others are niche issues which the average person is unlikely to encounter.

Here are the props, and my endorsements.



Proposition 1: Codify abortion rights into California law

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: This is a knee-jerk proposition in response to the overturning of Roe v Wade. However, it is unnecessary. A liberal state like California will never make abortion illegal, so a state constitutional amendment is only for show. More importantly, this proposition makes unrestricted late term abortion legal, allowing California to join a growing number of states allowing women to literally murder viable, healthy, developed babies, even in absence of any real threat to their physical health.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 26: Legalize sportsbetting at Indian casinos and state-licensed racetracks

Democrat position: Neutral
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Indian gaming has been a disaster in California, and has done the opposite of what was intended when first legalized. A small number of members of each tribe have gotten rich, while the benefit has not trickled down much to the rest of the tribal members. Even worse, there is zero consumer protection, and these casinos can detain and criminally charge you at will, and you are forced to handle matters in their tribal courts. You cannot sue these casinos if they screw you in any way, except in their super-biased tribal courts. Do you want these people in charge of California sportsbetting, at the exclusion of everywhere else besides racetracks? That's the last thing we need. Keep in mind that these places are also very paranoid about advantage players, and are likely to be quick to ban any winning sportsbettors. Also note that if both this and Prop 27 pass, the one which passes with a wider margin of victory will become law. Therefore, voting yes for both isn't the right play, as you might be fucking over the better proposition.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 27: Legalize online and mobile sportsbetting

Democrat position: Oppose
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: This is by far the better of the two propositions. Rather than leaving shady, greedy, consumer-unfriendly Indian tribes in charge of sportsbetting in California, this allows online/mobile sportsbetting to be offered by various licensed gaming entities. The opponents of Prop 27 whine about "out of state corporations" making the bulk of the money, but who cares? The truth is that out-of-state corporations are the ones which are most reputable when it comes to gaming (think MGM, Draftkings, Caesars, etc), and in-state corporations making the money won't trickle down to the typical Californian anyway. At the supermarket, do you take care to buy items "made in California", or does this not matter to you? Same thing here. The state will still make plenty, via taxation. This legalizes online/app sportsbetting, which is exactly what we want and need here.

My vote: STRONG YES




Proposition 28: Require a minimum 1% of funding for K-12 schools to be for art and music programs.

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Neutral

My analysis: I have nothing against art and music programs in the schools. I was actually a damn good trumpet player in junior high, until getting braces ruined everything for me in 7th grade. However, requiring a percentage of the budget to go to a certain niche area is a mistake, as budgeting should be by necessity, not compulsion. This will simply force schools to waste money on arts/music in years where they're already well enough funded, and the proposition requires 80% to be spent on teachers. This is a trick by the corrupt teachers union to simply force-employ more art/music teachers, whether they are needed or not.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 29: Require dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or PA while patients are being treated

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Every election we seem to have a weird dialysis proposition on the ballot, which most people don't understand or care much about. This one has a few requirements, such as having a doctor/PA/nurse practitioner on staff at all times, as well as not being able to refuse treatment to people who can't pay. I haven't spent much time looking into this one, but it seems reasonable enough.

My vote: WEAK YES




Proposition 30: Tax increase of 1.75% for those with incomes of $2 million per year

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Ah... another class warfare tax proposition we get on each ballot, seeking to pit the vast majority of citizens against the small percentage of people who make a lot of money. Taxes are already the highest in California of any state in the nation. Do we need to soak the very rich for yet another 1.75%, just because they "can afford it"? There's a reason so many people are fleeing California, and moving to income-tax-free states like Texas and Florida.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 31: Continue statewide ban on flavored tobacco products.

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Democrats think that flavored tobacco products encourage kids to start with tobacco usage, and that's probably true. However, I'm not a big fan of the state deciding what adults can and can't do, simply because it might also appeal to teens. The same tired argument has been made for years regarding not allowing online gambling/poker. I do not smoke or vape, and never will, but I don't support this proposition.

My vote: NO

[ftpjesus]

There are only 7 propositions which have made it onto the California ballot in November 2022. These measures often make drastic changes to California law, sometimes taking effect immediately. These are arguably more impactful to the everyday person's lives than the person elected governor. Some propositions cause a big change, and others are niche issues which the average person is unlikely to encounter.

Here are the props, and my endorsements.



Proposition 1: Codify abortion rights into California law

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: This is a knee-jerk proposition in response to the overturning of Roe v Wade. However, it is unnecessary. A liberal state like California will never make abortion illegal, so a state constitutional amendment is only for show. More importantly, this proposition makes unrestricted late term abortion legal, allowing California to join a growing number of states allowing women to literally murder viable, healthy, developed babies, even in absence of any real threat to their physical health.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 26: Legalize sportsbetting at Indian casinos and state-licensed racetracks

Democrat position: Neutral
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Indian gaming has been a disaster in California, and has done the opposite of what was intended when first legalized. A small number of members of each tribe have gotten rich, while the benefit has not trickled down much to the rest of the tribal members. Even worse, there is zero consumer protection, and these casinos can detain and criminally charge you at will, and you are forced to handle matters in their tribal courts. You cannot sue these casinos if they screw you in any way, except in their super-biased tribal courts. Do you want these people in charge of California sportsbetting, at the exclusion of everywhere else besides racetracks? That's the last thing we need. Keep in mind that these places are also very paranoid about advantage players, and are likely to be quick to ban any winning sportsbettors. Also note that if both this and Prop 27 pass, the one which passes with a wider margin of victory will become law. Therefore, taking the position that voting for both is the right play, you might be fucking over the better proposition.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 27: Legalize online and mobile sportsbetting

Democrat position: Oppose
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: This is by far the better of the two propositions. Rather than leaving shady, greedy, consumer-unfriendly Indian tribes in charge of sportsbetting in California, this allows online/mobile sportsbetting to be offered by various licensed gaming entities. The opponents of Prop 27 whine about "out of state corporations" making the bulk of the money, but who cares? The truth is that out-of-state corporations are the ones which are most reputable when it comes to gaming (think MGM, Draftkings, Caesars, etc), and in-state corporations making the money won't trickle down to the typical Californian anyway. At the supermarket, do you take care to buy items "made in California", or does this not matter to you? Same thing here. The state will still make plenty, via taxation. This legalizes online/app sportsbetting, which is exactly what we want and need here.

My vote: STRONG YES




Proposition 28: Require a minimum 1% of funding for K-12 schools to be for art and music programs.

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Neutral

My analysis: I have nothing against art and music programs in the schools. I was actually a damn good trumpet player in junior high, until getting braces ruined everything for me in 7th grade. However, requiring a percentage of the budget to go to a certain niche area is a mistake, as budgeting should be by necessity, not compulsion. This will simply force schools to waste money on arts/music in years where they're already well enough funded, and the proposition requires 80% to be spent on teachers. This is a trick by the corrupt teachers union to simply force-employ more art/music teachers, whether they are needed or not.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 29: Require dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or PA while patients are being treated

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Every election we seem to have a weird dialysis proposition on the ballot, which most people don't understand or care much about. This one has a few requirements, such as having a doctor/PA/nurse practitioner on staff at all times, as well as not being able to refuse treatment to people who can't pay. I haven't spent much time looking into this one, but it seems reasonable enough.

My vote: WEAK YES




Proposition 30: Tax increase of 1.75% for those with incomes of $2 million per year

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Ah... another class warfare tax proposition we get on each ballot, seeking to pit the vast majority of citizens against the small percentage of people who make a lot of money. Taxes are already the highest in California of any state in the nation. Do we need to soak the very rich for yet another 1.75%, just because they "can afford it"? There's a reason so many people are fleeing California, and moving to income-tax-free states like Texas and Florida.

My vote: HARD NO




Proposition 31: Continue statewide ban on flavored tobacco products.

Democrat position: Support
Republican position: Oppose

My analysis: Democrats think that flavored tobacco products encourage kids to start with tobacco usage, and that's probably true. However, I'm not a big fan of the state deciding what adults can and can't do, simply because it might also appeal to teens. The same tired argument has been made for years regarding not allowing online gambling/poker. I do not smoke or vape, and never will, but I don't support this proposition.

My vote: NO

Agree 26 is a fiasco and I believe I read online via Twitter several newspapers have now come out against Prop 26. Prop 27 is a great idea but seeing how gambling seems to go in Cali with inane whims Ill be surprised if it passes. Prop 28 seems like just some weird thing to cater to liberal arts types.

Im actually all for Prop 29 Ive seen some messes due to failures of dialysis staff who either dont have enough skills or honestly even the authority under the Nurse Practice Act of a state to perform certain life saving options that either oddly require an MD/NP/PA or a Paramedic via 911. The solution is change what the protocols are for such things as an AV Fistula rupture in clinics to allow this (which could solve the problem) or have a high level provider on hand in case of an issue. Truthfully some dialysis patients probably would benefit from a higher level provider being in the bldg to address also some electrolyte issues instead of having to wait for a nurse to call and get orders and/or call back as End Stage renal patients can have a myriad of labs all out of whack beyond just elevated Potassium, Creatine, Blood Urea Nitrogen, and a few other obvious issues due to Kidney failure. So yeah this is probably a good idea and Im not sure where the inability to pay comes from there is no such thing. End Stage Renal Disease no matter the age is automatically eligible for Medicare not just Medicaid coverage so the Feds already cover the healthcare costs of these treatments as it considered uninsurable in private insurance and yet non negotiable life preserving necessary but the costs arent cheap. (On a side note had one rupture on a patient of mine when I was charge nurse one evening thankfully I knew what to do and we had the NP still in the bldg at the time to OK intervention otherwise it wouldve been a race against time to slow blood flow waiting for EMS and also pray they didnt dangerously hemorrhage in the meantime still had fun getting blood off the bed, walls etc afterwards since no housekeeping at that time).

Obvious Prop 30 is nothing but an asinine moneygrab and anybody really believe the rich limo libs who contribute to the Dems in Silicon Valley are gonna pay of course not.

Prop 32 was and remains pointless. The argument was never there and flavored tobacco has never shown legitimately via evidence to increase teen smoking despite what some claim. and honestly the truth remains it could be seen as racist because as I recall once before they tried to include menthol in those bans and well African Americans disproportionately use Menthol tobacco products compared to Whites Asians and Hispanics