The landscape of abortion access is rapidly shifting across the United States.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, ending a nearly 50-year-old
constitutional right to abortion, Republican-led states have rushed to restrict the procedure
or ban it altogether.
California is moving even further in the opposite direction.
Democratic leaders want to make the state a “sanctuary” for abortion, welcoming
patients from across the country who no longer can terminate their pregnancies at home.
And now California voters have a chance to enshrine reproductive rights in the state
constitution.
Hi, I’m Alexei Koseff, the state Capitol reporter for CalMatters, and this is Proposition
1 in under a minute.
Abortion access isn’t going away in California any time soon.
The procedure has been legal here since 1967.
Currently, you can get an abortion for any reason before a fetus is viable at about 24
weeks of pregnancy.
California’s constitution even includes a right to privacy that state courts have
interpreted as protecting abortion.
But with the end of Roe, Democratic leaders want greater assurances that abortion access
won’t be threatened by shifting political tides.
They placed a state constitutional amendment before voters declaring that people have a
right to choose to have an abortion and a right to choose or refuse contraceptives.
Critics say the amendment would not offer any new protections and that it’s merely
a ploy to turn out liberal voters.
But supporters argue an explicit guarantee of reproductive freedom is important, in case
legal interpretations of California’s constitutional right to privacy change.
Anti-abortion advocates also say the language is so broad that it would legalize late-term
abortions, beyond the 24-week point of viability.
Proponents deny that.
So vote yes if you I want California to add a fundamental right to choose an abortion
in the state constitution.
Vote no if you don’t.
To learn more about this proposition and others, visit CalMatters.org.
To stay up-to-date on California policy and politics, subscribe to our newsletter in the
link below.
For CalMatters, I’m Alexei Koseff.
Would you put money on Steph Curry or LeBron James?
Want to bet on the Rams winning the Super Bowl again?
In 2018, the Supreme Court allowed states to legalize commercial sports betting.
Since then, more than half of U.S. states have made the move.
Then came a flurry of initiatives to legalize sports betting in California.
Two will appear on your November ballot.
Prop. 27 — funded by Draftkings, Fanduel and other large gaming companies — would
legalize online sports betting.
We have a separate video for that.
But there’s another, Prop. 26.
I’ll explain.
Hi, I’m Grace Gedye, economy reporter with CalMatters, and I’m going to explain Prop.
26 in a minute.
Prop 26 would legalize sports betting at tribal casinos and at California’s four horse race
tracks.
This prop, funded by several Native American Tribes, would also allow tribal casinos to
start offering roulette and dice games
If it passes, Prop. 26 will allow anyone to sue for certain gaming law violations.
Analysts estimate Prop. 26 could generate tens of millions of dollars for the state
annually … which would first fund schools and gambling regulation.
Any money left over would go to the state’s main fund, and also fund things like mental
health programs
Opponents are led by cardrooms, which offer games like poker and pai-gow.
They say this idea would trigger more lawsuits against them
Supporters say it will increase tribal-self sufficiency and draw more business to tribal
casinos.
Vote “yes” if you want to allow sports betting at race tracks and tribal casinos,
and you want tribal casinos to add roulette and dice games.
Vote “no” if you do not.
And one not-so-small disclaimer.
If both sports betting initiatives pass, it’s possible both could go into effect.
But in all likelihood a court would have to decide.
To learn more about this proposition and others, visit CalMatters.org.
To stay up-to-date on California policy and politics, subscribe to our newsletter in the
link below.
For CalMatters, I’m Grace Gedye.
In a lot of the country, if you watched the Super Bowl…odds are you saw ads for sports
betting.
A lot of them.
“Live in-game betting”?
“Lady Luck”?
“Life’s a gamble”?
But if you’re in California, betting on sports — besides horse racing — is illegal…
at least for now.
In November, Californians will vote on two different initiatives to legalize sports betting.
Prop. 26 — funded by Native American tribes — would legalize sports betting only at
tribal casinos and horse race tracks.
We have a separate video for that one.
But then there’s another…Prop. 27
Hi, I’m Grace Gedye, economy reporter with CalMatters, and I’m going to explain Prop.
27 in a minute.
Prop. 27 would allow online sports betting — outside of Native American tribal lands.
It’s backed by some of the biggest names in online sports betting.
If the measure passes, tribes could offer online sports betting.
Gaming companies could as well if they make a deal with a tribe.
State analysts estimate Prop. 27 could generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually for
California.
Most of that would be dedicated to homelessness and housing.
Fifteen percent would go to Native American tribes that are not involved in sports betting.
The measure also creates a new arm of the state Justice Department to regulate online
sports wagering.
Opponents say online sports betting could increase the risk of gambling addiction…
They also argue the bulk of the profits would go to companies in other states.
Supporters say it would create permanent funding to remedy homelessness, and would boost funds
for tribes.
Vote “yes” if you want to legalize online sports betting.
Vote “no” if you don’t.
And one not-so-small disclaimer: If both sports betting initiatives pass, it’s possible
both could go into effect, but in all likelihood a court would have to decide.
To learn more about this proposition and others, visit CalMatters.org.
To stay up-to-date on California policy and politics, subscribe to our newsletter in the
link below.
For CalMatters, I’m Grace Gedye.
When school budgets are cut, art and music classes are often the first to go.
But a coalition of educators, labor groups, musicians and Hollywood actors say arts and
music are just as important as science, math and reading.
In November, California voters will decide if the state’s yearly budget should mandate
about $1 billion more for arts and music education.
Hi, I’m Joe Hong, I’m the K-12 education reporter for CalMatters, and this is Proposition
28 in under a minute.
Today, the state requires all of California’s public school students to get some form of
art instruction.
But the quality of education can vary based on where you live.
So Prop. 28 was designed to give more money to districts that serve more students living
in poverty.
This measure won’t raise taxes, but it will affect the budget.
By law, California guarantees that about 40 percent of the state’s general fund goes
to education.
Prop. 28 would add 1 percent to that and dedicate it to arts instruction.
For next year, that comes out to about an additional 1 billion dollars.
Districts would need to use most of that money to hire teachers for art, music or drama.
Supporters of the measure say students need the space to express themselves now more than
ever to overcome the mental health challenges brought on by the pandemic.
The money would come out of the state’s general fund, which currently has a surplus
of nearly 100 billion dollars.
So for now, supporters say they don’t anticipate any cuts from elsewhere in the state budget.
Heading into the fall campaign, no individual or organization was spending money to oppose
the measure.
So vote yes if you want California to give more money to schools for art and music.
And vote no if you don’t.
To learn more about this proposition and others, visit CalMatters.org.
To stay up-to-date on California policy and politics, subscribe to our newsletter in the
link below.
For CalMatters, I’m Joe Hong.
It was on the ballot in 2018, 2020, and it’s here again — yup, Californians will once
again weigh in on a kidney dialysis measure.
I’ll explain.
Hi, I’m Ana Ibarra, health reporter for CalMatters.
And this is Proposition 29, explained in a minute.
Similar to its predecessors, Prop. 29 would add rules for dialysis clinics, most notably,
it would boost staffing requirements and require clinics to have at least one physician, nurse
practitioner, or physician assistant on site or in some cases remotely available.
This initiative would also require clinics to report dialysis-related infections to the
state and list physicians who have financial interest in clinics.
The measure’s proponent, the health workers union SEIU-UHW, argues that Prop. 29 would
improve patient care and increase transparency.
Despite its two previous losses, the union says it remains committed to reforming an
industry dominated by large for-profit companies.
The opposition campaign supported by California’s doctor lobby among other medical groups, and
financed largely by dialysis giants DaVita and Fresenius, says this is part of the labor
group’s ongoing fight to organize dialysis workers.
They say, having another medical professional on site is an unnecessary expense that could
lead some clinics to cut their hours or shut down, potentially hurting patient access.
So, `Vote yes if you want more rules for dialysis clinics.
Vote no if you don’t.
To learn more about this proposition and others, go to CalMatters.org.
California.
It’s known for its stunning beaches, redwood forests, sunny weather… and dirty air.
It has some of the worst air quality in the country.
State data shows that more than 90% of Californians breathe unhealthy levels of air pollutants.
To reduce air pollution and greenhouse emissions, Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked the Air Resources
Board to ban the sale of all new gasoline-powered cars by 2035.
So how will the state meet its goal and who’s going to pay for it?
Voters will help decide this in November.
I’ll explain.
Hi, I’m Nadia Lopez.
I cover the environment for CalMatters and this is Prop 30 explained in one minute.
Prop. 30 would impose a 1.75% income tax increase on Californians making more than $2 million
per year.
The tax would generate up to $4.5 billion annually.
Most of the money would go toward rebates for people buying zero-emission cars and to
build more charging stations.
Half of that funding will go to low- and middle-income residents.
A quarter of the money would provide funding to hire and train firefighters.
The measure is backed by environmentalists and public health groups, and is funded largely
by the ride-share company Lyft.
State regulations require Lyft and Uber drivers, by 2030, to log 90% of their miles in electric
vehicles.
Supporters say the tax would generate much-needed funding to support wildfire prevention and
help accelerate the transition to electric cars.
But opponents, including the state Republican Party and Gov. Newsom, say Californians don’t
need more tax hikes because everyone is already feeling the effects of high inflation and
surging gas prices.
They argue that the tax would drive many residents out of the state to benefit a special interest:
ride-share companies.
Vote yes if you think millionaires should be taxed to help fund electric car rebates
and more firefighters.
Vote no if you don’t.
To learn more about this proposition and others, visit CalMatters.org.
To stay up-to-date on California policy and politics, subscribe to our newsletter in the
link below.
For CalMatters, I’m Nadia Lopez.
In 2020 California lawmakers voted to prohibit the sale of flavored vape and chewing tobacco,
and menthol cigarettes.
No more tobacco in flavors like cotton candy, mango and honey.
But it hasn’t taken effect yet because the tobacco industry collected enough signatures
to put a referendum on California’s November ballot.
Hi I’m Elizabeth Aguilera, reporter for CalMatters, and this is Proposition 31 in
under a minute.
Prop. 31 asks voters whether they want California’s flavored tobacco ban to go into effect.
It’s a debate that’s been raging for years.
The federal government already banned flavored cigarettes except for menthol, and has proposed
banning those too.
It’s also banned pre-filled flavored vape pods, but not other flavored vape cartridges.
All of those would be outlawed in California if voters back Prop. 31.
(optional: could list exclusions: loose-leaf, hooka and cigars)
Advocates of the wider flavor ban argue that flavored products are marketed to and attract
children and teens who go on to develop nicotine addiction.
Opponents of the ban say the state already makes it illegal to sell tobacco products
to minors, and that this law infringes on the freedoms of adults who choose flavored
products and menthol cigarettes.
At least 60 California cities and counties already ban selling some flavored tobacco
products and menthol cigarettes.
Those regulations won’t change if the law is voted down.
Vote yes if you want the law banning flavored tobacco in California to go into effect.
Vote no if you want to strike down the state ban and allow the sale of flavored tobacco
products.
To learn more about this proposition and others, visit CalMatters.org.
To stay up-to-date on California policy and politics subscribe to our newsletter in the
link below.
For CalMatters, I’m Elizabeth Aguilera