How I’m voting on California propositions and the upcoming election
California voters will be asked to weigh in on seven statewide ballot measures in the upcoming election, the fewest measures in an election year since 1916. (In November 2020, for example, voters determined the fate of 12 statewide ballot measures.)
Two of the seven deal with gambling (26 and 27), one is a rehash of kidney dialysis centers (Prop 29), one deals with abortions (Prop 1), one deals with flavored tobacco products (Prop 31), one is about money designated for music and arts in school (Prop 28) and one is about charging higher taxes from the wealthy to pay for electric cars charging stations (Prop 30).
In Downey we will also be voting whether to tax ourselves an additional $500,000,000 for another bond for our school district and another $450,000,000 for a different bond for Cerritos College buildings. Yes, you read it right, $500 million plus $450 million. Downey residents will vote to tax themselves (or not) an additional $950 million onto our property tax bills.
Since we are still paying for two bonds for Downey Unified and another one from Cerritos College, I will be voting no on both. While DUSD is a very good steward of our funds and a well-managed district, the timing along with inflation and cost make it wrong to be asking us to vote on this now. I will be voting no on both of these bonds.
I have been asked to write a brief description of each proposition. I usually do this every election. I do not ask anyone to vote any particular way, but I will let you know how I’m voting. I am not involved, nor do I work with anyone involved in any of the propositions, on either side. My vote is based on my personal beliefs, knowledge, and experience.
I do ask everyone to do their own research and vote after making a review of each proposition. It is also interesting to think about the influence the ballot designation has and what the proposition actually is doing. Knowing who supports and opposes each proposition is also fascinating and, in some cases, mildly funny. But rest assured, there is a lot of money spent on each proposition, both ways, and we should be informed of this.
Some propositions of the past are very telling. Do we remember in our last election the proposition that was put on the ballot by the realtor’s association. The one that basically took away the right to leave your house to your children without a new tax assessment unless they moved into the house? It was also promoted as money going to our firemen and to fight fires and wildfires. There were lots of commercials with fake firemen stating how good these new funds would be used to save property and our planet. So now we ask, how much money has been raised or spent on these activities? Nothing. Not one cent. Firefighters are now weighing in again on one of this year's propositions.
We need to read the fine print sometimes and look beyond the phony or misleading advertising we see during election season.
Hence my point, we have a responsibility to inform ourselves or we get what is let down by fancy TV commercials and special interest groups. This is my reason for writing this every election season, just trying to bring up the facts and information. You, the informed voter, should decide.
And to put my views and voting record into perspective I do think my background is important to know too because it does influence how I personally vote.
Some facts about me…I am an immigrant refugee who came to this country at an early age. I consider myself a moderate in most of my political views. I served on the Downey City Council for 8 years and as Mayor twice. I am a Catholic Clergy and serve as a Chaplain for the Downey Police Department for the past 20 years. I am a homeowner in Downey for over 40 years and raised all 5 of our kids here. I have 4 grandchildren, two of which live in Downey. Our 8-year-old grandson is in the 3rd grade and attends public school here in the Downey Unified School District. I’m what you call a high propensity voter, or likely to vote. I hope this helps you.
It happens every election cycle in California. We voters open our ballots to find a long list of ballot measures with confusing ballot titles. The process leaves most voters frustrated, if not angry.
It shouldn’t be this way. The non-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recommends that initiative titles and summaries should be “concise, accurate, and impartial.” Sadly, in California the politicians try to manipulate the vote by giving favorable titles and summaries to ballot measures they like and unfavorable titles and summaries to ballot measures they don’t like.
You must be careful and know what you’re voting for - especially because this year there are hidden tax increases on the ballot and competing gambling initiatives as well.
Here is a “plain English” rundown of the seven statewide ballot measures on California’s 2022 ballot:
Proposition 1
Official Title: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Plain English Translation: Eliminates Any Restrictions on When Abortions Can Be Performed
Prop 1 is being sold publicly as merely a codification of a pro-choice position in the California state constitution, but it actually goes far further than that. The actual text of this ballot measure would repeal the current ban on abortions after 23 weeks of a pregnancy and allow the right to a late-term abortion up to the moment of birth. Proposition 1 would give California one of the most extreme abortion laws in the country. This measure may also interfere with existing state laws that allow for Sexually Violent Predators to be placed under mandatory treatment to limit their sex drive. Abortions will continue to be legal in California whether this passes or not. But it is too extreme, even for our state. I will be voting NO.
Proposition 26
Official Title: Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Plain English Translation: Protects and expands non-competition on Tribal Gaming Rights, and allows Trial Lawyers to file more lawsuits through expansion of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)
Prop 26 affirms the current practice of allowing only federally recognized Native American tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on tribal lands, subject to compacts negotiated by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature. It would also allow on-site sports wagering at privately operated horse-racing tracks in specified counties for ages 21 and up. Unfortunately, the measure contains a “poison pill” to expand the use of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to allow trial attorneys to file frivolous lawsuits that harm small businesses. I will be voting NO on 26.
Proposition 27
Official Title: Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Plain English Translation: Allows Private Businesses to Engage in Online Gambling to Compete with Native American Tribes
Proposition 27 would expand gambling in California beyond casinos currently operated by Native American tribes by allowing private businesses to operate online and mobile sports wagering for persons 21 and up. Native American tribes say this competition from private businesses will undermine their ability to fund programs for their tribes. Backers of the measure say they would impose a special tax on these new forms of gambling with revenue allegedly going toward homeless aid programs.
Who is behind Prop 27? Private gaming giants are behind this proposition of course. But online gambling is legal in many states, and it is fairly simple to do so from California now. So, it really comes down to your personal preference and whether you think regulating online gambling and taxing it for California intentions is worth it. While I don’t gamble personally, I do not have a problem with us taxing gambling and having some new funds for our state projects. I am voting YES on 27.
Proposition 28
Official Title: Provides Additional Funding For Arts And Music Education In Public Schools. Initiative Statute.
Plain English Translation: Earmarks Mandatory Funding from the Existing State Education Budget for Arts and Music Programs which could take away from the Basics Core Curriculums of Math and Reading.
Prop 28 is an earmark - or a requirement that the state spend at least a certain amount of funds from the state budget for the exclusive benefit of art and music programs. The earmark mandates that 1% of required state and local funding for public schools be set aside for arts and music programs and then allocates a greater proportion of the funds to schools serving more economically disadvantaged students. Earmarks are not free money - so any earmark will have to come at the expense of other educational programs for fundamental academic areas like reading, writing and math. 1% doesn’t sound like a lot but it really is. While arts and music programs are important and worthy of funding, Prop 28 is flawed as currently written and could lead to budget cuts in core education programs. I will be voting NO on 28.
Proposition 29
Official Title: Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional At Kidney Dialysis Clinics And Establishes Other State Requirements. Initiative Statute
Plain English Translation: Imposes Costly Regulations on Kidney Dialysis Clinics to Benefit Organized Labor Unions Who Have Asked Voters Before
Prop 29 may be familiar to voters since it has been rejected twice before in 2018 and 2020. Why does it keep appearing on the ballot? Wealthy labor unions force the measure on the ballot in an attempt to impose new costly regulations on kidney dialysis clinics that would benefit the interests of the unions. Prop 29 requires specific medical personnel on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics - whether or not the personnel are even needed. The measure also increases mandatory state reporting and prohibits clinics from closing or reducing services without state approval. A "no” vote keeps doctors and clinics more independent from state control. Since I have a Type 1 diabetic son I know how important it is to keep medical treatment stable that is working. I will be voting NO on 29, again.
Proposition 30
Official Title: Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution And Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million.
Plain English Translation: Tax Increase Funded and Proposed BY Lyft to Help Themselves- Increases Income Taxes to Fund a Variety of New Government Programs That Even Governor Newsom Opposes
Prop 30 is a massive income tax increase - even though California already has the highest income taxes in the country of any state. Prop 30 imposes a 1.75% tax increase for personal incomes over $2 million. Revenue for the proposition aims to go toward climate change measures, but the definition of programs eligible for these new funds is quite broad as to allow the funds to be used in a wide-range of ways. This initiative was put on the ballot by Lyft to be self-serving.
The list of those who support and those who oppose make for some interesting conversation too. Supported by Lyft, several trade unions, and the California Democratic party. Opposed by Governor Newsom (he called it a Trojan horse and terrible law), the California Teachers Association, the California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. You may never see these groups against the same cause together again. Yes, politics can make you laugh out loud at times. I will be voting NO on 30.
Proposition 31
Official Title: Referendum on 2020 Law that Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.
Plain English Translation: Should California Ban the Sale of Flavored Tobacco?
Prop 31 is a “referendum” or question on whether a proposed state law should be implemented or rejected. State Senate Bill, SB 793, which prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products and tobacco flavor enhancers. A “yes” vote would uphold and pass the law into effect, banning the retail sale of these flavored tobacco products. A “no” vote would overturn the law and tobacco companies would be allowed to sell flavored tobacco products in the state. We already have strict tobacco laws, including age restrictions — which should take care of several gateway drug concerns. I generally do not like government taking away choices or preferences on already heavily regulated items. For those reasons I will be voting NO on 31.
Mario A. Guerra is a two time former Mayor of Downey and co-host of the podcast Talking Downey with Mario and Eric. He can be reached at www.marioaguerra.com