Proposition 1 

Prop 1 would amend the Constitution of California to forbid any future laws blocking the existing right to reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion. Voters in Vermont face a similar measure, while Kansas voters already rejected a measure that would have affirmed that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

The disagreement around Prop 1 and the right to reproductive freedom falls along party lines, with the California Democratic Party in favor and the California Republican Party in opposition. 

Proposition 28

Prop 28 would dedicate a minimum of 1 percent of California’s yearly school spending to Music and Arts education.

For schools with more than 500 students, 80 percent of those funds would be required to go toward hiring teachers.

The measure is supported by a variety of Californians, from billionaire Steve Ballmer, to actor/producer Issa Rae, as well as the California Democratic Party.

Supporters see value in guaranteeing a level of consistent arts funding based on general education spending. 

Public opposition to Prop 28 is limited, but both the Santa Cruz Sentinel and the San Jose Mercury News have published editorials against the measure.

They reject the approach of “Ballot-Box Budgeting” and decry the investment as excessive when per-student expenditures are already at a record high. 

Proposition 29 

Prop 29 would require dialysis clinics to staff a physician, nurse practitioner, and registered nurse when providing treatment. It would also require reporting dialysis-related infections to state health agencies, and any continuing infections to the federal level.

Prop 29 would also stop clinics from discriminating against patients based on insurance type, and would require doctors and shareholders owning 5 percent or more of a dialysis clinic to publicize this information.

Lastly, it would require clinic owners to receive written consent from the California Public Health Department to close dialysis clinics.

The main proponent of the measure is SEIU-UHW West, a healthcare workers union that is joined by the California Democratic Party in support of the measure.

They see dialysis clinics as failing to provide quality services and underpaying staff, all while raking in record-breaking profits.

Supporters want these additional regulations to raise the quality of care proportionally with the profits being brought in. 

Opponents, such as the California Medical Association, see the additional requirement of physicians as superfluous, since those physicians wouldn’t be authorized to change or direct a patient’s care.

California is also currently mired in a physician shortage, making the requirement of one even more challenging.

Other opponents, including patient advocacy groups like the Chronic Disease Coalition and Dialysis Patient Citizens, emphasize the monetary strain that hiring licensed nurses and physicians would bring, potentially closing some dialysis centers and leaving thousands without accessible care.

The largest donors around this measure are Davita Inc. and Fresenius Inc., two dialysis corporations who have combined to spend over $79 million to stop Prop 29.

Supporters of Prop 29 identify the large profit margins of Davita and Fresenius, while opponents emphasize the fact that those margins have been in decline.

The California Republican Party also opposes Prop 29.

Voters previously rejected two other similar dialysis measures in 2018 and 2020.  

Proposition 26 

Prop 26 would legalize sports gambling at some horse racetracks and at all federally recognized tribal casinos. It would also legalize roulette and dice games at recognized Native casinos.

Prop 26 would impose a 10 percent tax on sports betting at racetracks, the revenue of which would be divided 15/15/70 between gambling addiction and public health programs, enforcement of greater sports betting and gambling regulations, and the state’s general fund, respectively.

Supporters range from tribes and tribal bands, to the California Young Democrats, to the San Diego Police Officers Association, and the San Diego and Los Angeles Urban League. They note the increased access to regulated gambling, and the potential revenue that a 10 percent tax would bring.

Opponents are concerned about the loss of local revenue from local casinos due to the specific legalization on tribal land, and the expanding gambling monopoly that tribal casinos hold.

More than half a dozen casino companies have joined the California Republican Party and the California Contract Cities Association in opposition. 

Proposition 27 

Prop 27 would legalize online sports betting statewide for anyone over the age of 21, after gambling was previously banned statewide.

Under the amendments Prop 27 makes, online sports betting platforms would need an operating agreement or a market access agreement with a Native tribe in California before opening sports betting outside of those tribal lands.

The projected revenue, between 100 and 500 million, would go towards regulation, and 85 percent of the remainder would be earmarked for houselessness solutions, while the final 15 percent would go towards the tribes not participating in sports gambling.

The Mayors of Fresno, Oakland, Long Beach, and Sacramento, as well as Major League Baseball, have all voiced their support. All four mayors believe that revenue designated to fight houselessness would be instrumental for their cities.

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties of California oppose Prop 27, along with the California Teachers Association.

Opponents are concerned with the spread of gambling addiction that comes with increased access and excess gambling profits flowing to out of state corporations via tax loopholes.  

Proposition 30

Prop 30 would increase taxes on personal income above $2 million by 1.75 percent. The revenue generated would be routed for zero emission vehicles and wildfire response and prevention programs.

The measure is supported by the American Lung Association, the California Democratic Party, and Lyft, which has donated over $35 million in support.

Gavin Newsom headlines the opposition, as he believes the proposition would funnel tax revenue into Lyft’s zero emission vehicles.

Other opponents, like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, bemoan the increasing taxes to California’s already high tax rate. 

Proposition 31 

Supporting Prop 31 would uphold the current ban on flavored tobacco products, while opposing Prop 31 would repeal SB 793 and re-open flavored tobacco sales.

Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party support upholding the ban, emphasizing protecting children from Big Tobacco’s marketing.

The California Republican Party opposes the ban, stating that underage tobacco sales are already prohibited and claims that prohibition is an ineffective strategy.

Tobacco corporations donated north of $16 million in opposition of Prop 31.