Serving the Fullerton Community Since 1922

The Hornet

  • The Hornet and Inside Fullerton are on summer break and will return on August 26, 2024. Please send any tips or inquiries to Jessica Langlois at [email protected].

The Hornet

Serving the Fullerton Community Since 1922

The Hornet

California 2022 Propositions Voters Guide

Feeling overwhelmed by proposition ads with conflicting information? The Hornet has compiled short descriptions of each proposition to get you informed before Election Day on Nov. 8.

Proposition 1: Abortion

By Amy Agame

The Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade in June, leaving the right of abortion unprotected by the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 1 aims to add an amendment to the California constitution protecting the right to abortion and contraceptives.

Current California state laws still allow abortion and contraceptives to be provided. If not passed, there will not be any rewording to the California Constitution, meaning that California could be threatened if a national abortion ban were to occur.

“We’re couple of steps away from [a national ban] or one step away from the Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment’s protection of life would extend to fetal rights–-so not out of the realm of possibility that this would affect Californians,” said Jodi Balma, a Fullerton College political science instructor, during her livestream.

Fourteen states have chosen not to include abortion within their state laws since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Texas, for example, passed the House Bill 1280 to criminalize doctors performing abortions, and its Senate 8 Bill outlaws abortion at the six-week mark.

This is not the first time that abortion has been debated on California’s ballot. The Reproductive Privacy Act of 2002 added language declaring that women had a fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control and to choose to bear a child or not.

According to the California Secretary of State’s office, $16.6 million have been raised in support of Proposition 1 by 307 contributions. The opposing side has gained $300,000 through 625 contributions.

Propositions 26 and 27: Gambling

By Tyler Garcia

About half of the states in America allow commercial casino gambling, and California might be joining the crowd after the midterm election. Propositions 26 and 27 are now on the ballot and would legalize different types of gambling. Most of the other propositions that are on this ballot have about $10 million or less in support, but these two ballots have over $500 million.

If passed, Proposition 26 would legalize sports betting and bringing dice and roulette games into tribal casinos all over California, and Proposition 27 would legalize online sports gambling and allow out-of-state companies to partner with Native American tribes within California.

State and local government are not generating any revenue from illegal online betting, but if these propositions pass, the chances of new profit increase. There would be civil penalties to racetrack and tribal sports betting. Because more betting would occur within tribal casinos, there would be more taxes and penalties, resulting in more money for the state.

“Increased state revenues, potentially reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from payments made by facilities offering sports wagering and new civil penalties authorized by this measure,” according to the Official Voter Information Guide.

The increase in revenue could be a benefit to k-12 schools, community colleges, and the homeless population in California. “Prop 27 builds in funding that is long term and really matches the size of the crisis that we’re facing” said Sammie Rayner, the chief operating officer of Community Forward, a homeless center in San Francisco.

Proposition 28: Arts Education

By Antoinette Fitton

Proposition 28 aims to fund a fine arts education for the next generation of creators, focusing on an initiative for arts and music in K-12 education. If passed, 1% of California’s total state revenues (an estimated $1 billion) will be dedicated annually to funding programs such as performing arts, animation, and literature.

“Funding for arts and music education right now, the way it is, public schools depend on state and local budget decisions, and often that money is already spent on the essentials before you get to art education for music and drama teachers,” said Jodi Balma, a political science instructor at Fullerton College, during her podcast.

Schools with 500 students or more will be required to use 80% of the money to focus on hiring teachers and 20% for training and materials. According to CalMatters, school districts will need to publish reports on how they spend their funds each year.

The Vote Arts and Minds campaign is leading the support for Proposition 28, accompanied by endorsements from celebrities and musicians. Steven Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, has donated $1.5 million, contributing to the $9.3 million total.

“Prop 28 sounds good on the surface–more funding for arts and music–but the language is fatally flawed to allow diversion of funding from other education programs that are already not meeting the performance goals we’ve set,” Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California, said in a report with 600KOGO News Radio.

Proposition 29: Dialysis

By Pedro Saravia

Proposition 29 is on the ballot for the third time in California, having been shot down twice before. If passed, a physician, a nurse practitioner, or a physician assistant will be required on-site in every dialysis clinic in California.

Supporters of this measure argue that the extra staff will ensure good and equitable care to dialysis patients, while the opposition argues that the measure will cause the closure of dialysis clinics and risk patient lives.

The main rebuttal to the opposition is that privately owned dialysis clinics are trying to protect their profits. “In 2020, the California dialysis industry spent over $100 million to defeat an initiative to improve conditions for patients in dialysis clinics. Why did they spend so much? To protect their massive $561 million in profits in California in 2020,” according to the arguments and rebuttals page on the Voter Information Guide.

The highest support contributor was the Service Employees International Union, which made a contribution of about $111,000. The highest opposition contribution is $2.3 million coming from DaVita Inc.

This measure has been on the ballots twice before, but has never passed. Funding for the opposition has been around 10 times greater than support funding in all three elections.

Proposition 30: Environmental Funding

By Lauren Pacheco

With the consequences of climate change growing at a near-unstoppable rate, greenhouse gas reduction has made the ballot this year. Proposition 30 aims to provide funding for environmental programs and lower rebates on electric vehicles for California drivers to switch from gas powered cars.

The new proposition would include a 1.75% income tax on people that make above $2 million per year. The profits from this tax would contribute toward making electric vehicles more affordable and to build more charging centers. Proposition 30 will also help fund wildfire prevention programs in California, equal to $3.5 to $5 billion a year in profit.

“I would like an electric car or even a hybrid, but they are too expensive for me,” said Lyft driver Don Tran. “The electric charging might save me money on gas too,” said Tran.

Lyft has contributed nearly $25 million to the campaign this year alone. By 2030, California will require 90% of Uber and Lyft’s miles to be driven in electric vehicles.

In April, the Light-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Sales Requirement was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, which enforces the ban of sales of gas powered vehicles in California by 2035 to reduce air pollution.

The California Teachers Association (CTA) claims that Proposition 30 will cut school funding and public health programs and if passed, taxpayers will be funding big corporations instead.

“Unfortunately, Prop 30s solution is forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for large corporations,” said E. Toby Boyd, President of the CTA in the 2022 CTA Voter Guide.

Proposition 31: Flavored Tobacco

By Jacob Avalos

Proposition 31 proposes to ban the distribution and sale of most flavored tobacco cigarettes with the objective of decreasing tobacco and nicotine addictions in minors.

It aims to decrease sales of products such as flavored cigars, cigarettes, and vapes. Products like loose-leaf tobacco and certain cigars are excluded from this ban.

The support for Proposition 31 has raised over $35 million while the opposition has raised over $2 million. Micheal Bloomberg, former NYC mayor and 2019 presidential candidate, has donated an estimated $15.3 million in support of Proposition 31.

“In 2019, he pledged $160 million to push government officials at the state, local and federal levels to ban e-cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products, which he says specifically target children,” said SFGATE writer Eric Ting.

The opposition argues that banning flavored tobacco products will primarily affect adult access to such products. It is argued that minors’ consumption of unregulated products could lead to them intaking worse drugs than nicotine–especially with the nationwide rise of fentanyl overdoses.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office gathered that the revenue of tobacco last year was about $2 billion. It is estimated that the proposition could lead to an annual $100 million loss in revenue.