Politichaos

Resolving the Ruckus

Proposition 1

Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom

legislative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Existing California laws provide that every individual has a fundamental right to privacy in their personal reproductive decisions, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.

This measure would amend the California Constitution to expressly include these fundamental rights and prohibit the State from denying or interfering with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions.

This amendment is intended to further the existing California constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection, and does not narrow or limit these rights.

Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.

Notes

Proposition 26

Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands

initiative constitutional amendment and statute

Official Summary

Allows federally recognized Indian tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on-site on tribal lands, if authorized by gaming compacts approved by the State.

Allows sports wagering at certain licensed horseracing tracks in four counties for persons 21 years and older, and imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering profits at these tracks; directs revenues to state General Fund (70%), problem-gambling programs (15%), and enforcement (15%).

Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21.

Allows private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from racetrack and tribal casino sports betting payments and gambling penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues.

Increased state costs to regulate in-person sports betting, possibly reaching the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increase in state revenues.

Increased state costs to enforce gambling laws, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually. Some of these costs could be offset by the increase in state revenues.

Notes

In

Proposition 27

Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands

initiative constitutional amendment and statute

Official Summary

Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering for persons 21 years and older.

Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them.

Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on tribal lands.

Requires licensing fees and imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues.

Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to homelessness programs (85%) and nonparticipating tribes (15%).

Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but likely not more than $500 million annually, from sports betting payments and penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues.

Increased state costs to regulate online sports betting, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenues.

Notes

Proposition 28

Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools

initiative statute

Official Summary

Provides additional funding for arts and music education in all K–12 public schools (including charter schools) by annually allocating from state General Fund an amount equal to 1% of required state and local funding for public schools.

Allocates greater proportion of the additional funds to schools serving more economically disadvantaged students.

Schools with 500 or more students must spend at least 80% of the funding to employ teachers and remainder on training, supplies, and education partnerships.

Requires audits and limits administrative costs to 1% of the funding.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $1 billion annually, beginning next year, for arts education in public schools.

Notes

Proposition 29

Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements

initiative statute

Official Summary

Requires physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, with six months’ relevant experience, on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes exemption for staffing shortage if qualified medical professional is available through telehealth.

Requires clinics to disclose to patients all physicians with clinic ownership interests of five percent or more.

Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state.

Prohibits clinics from closing or substantially reducing services without state approval.

Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on source of payment.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Notes

Proposition 30

Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million

initiative statute

Official Summary

Increases tax on personal income over $2 million by 1.75% for individuals and married couples and allocates new tax revenues as follows: (1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters.

Requires audits of programs and expenditures.

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 (80 percent) and wildfire response and prevention activities (20 percent).

Notes

Proposition 31

Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products

approval of law

Official Summary

A “Yes” vote approves (and allows to take effect) a law enacted by the State Legislature in 2020 that:

Prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products (including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and snuff) and tobacco flavor enhancers.

Excludes from prohibition certain premium handmade cigars, loose leaf tobacco (not intended for making cigarettes), and shisha tobacco products (if sold by a hookah tobacco retailer meeting specified conditions).

A “No” vote rejects the law and prevents it from taking effect.

Fiscal Impact: Decreased state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually.

Notes

2018 General Election

Elected Officials

Federal

State

Judicial

(vote yes/no for Associate Justices)

  • Associate Justice, Supreme Court: Carol Corrigan (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Associate Justice, Supreme Court: Leondra Kruger (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Joan Kathleen Irion

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Judith Haller

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Richard Huffman (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Patricia Benke

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Cynthia Aaron

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: William Dato

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 1: Patricia Guerrero

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Douglas Miller (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Richard Fields (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Art McKinster (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 2: Marsha Slough (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 3: David Thompson

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 3: Raymond Ikola

  • Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 4 Division 3: Thomas Goethals (no info on VotersEdge)

  • Judge of Superior Court Office 37: Matt Brower or Gary Kreep

School

County

City of Oceanside

State of California Propositions

County of San Diego Propositions

City of Oceanside Propositions