Mountain Views News, Combined Edition Saturday, October 22, 2022

YES OR NO?Mountain View News Saturday, October 22, 2022 4 YES OR NO?Mountain View News Saturday, October 22, 2022 4 
CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 1, THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM 
AMENDMENT, legislatively referred constitutional amendment. 

A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to prohibit the state from interfering 
with or denying an individual's reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to 
an abortion and a right to contraceptives.
A "no" vote opposes this amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom in the state 
constitution. 

PROP 26 LEGALIZES SPORTS BETTING AT AMERICAN INDIAN GAMING 
CASINOS AND LICENSED TRACKS IN CALIFORNIA A combined initiated 
constitutional amendment and state statute. 

A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to (i) legalize sports betting at American Indian 
gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California; (ii) tax profits derived from sports 
betting at racetracks at 10%; and (iii) legalize roulette and dice games, such as craps, at tribal 
casinos. 

A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California 
and roulette and dice games at tribal casinos.

What would Proposition 26 change?
Proposition 26 would legalize sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed 
racetracks in California.[1]
The ballot measure would define sports betting as wagering on the results of professional, college, 
or amateur sport and athletic events, with the exception of high school sports and events 
featuring a California college team. Individuals would need to be 21 years of age to engage in 
legal sports betting.[1]
The ballot measure would enact a tax of 10 percent on profits derived from sports betting at 
racetracks. The state government would be required to distribute the revenue as follows: (a) 15 
percent to the California Department of Health for researching, developing, and implementing 
programs for problem gambling prevention and mental health and providing grants to local 
governments to address problem gambling and mental health; (b) 15 percent to the Bureau of 
Gambling Control for enforcing and implementing sports wagering and other forms of gaming 
within the state; and (c) 70 percent to the General Fund.[1]
The ballot measure would also legalize roulette and dice games, such as craps, at tribal casinos; 
however, tribal-state compacts would need to be amended before these games can be offered.[1]
Who is behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 26? 

PROP 27 LEGALIZES MOBILE SPORTS BETTING AND DEDICATES 
REVENUE TO CA. SOLUTIONS TO HOMELESSNESS AND MENTAL HEALTH 
SUPPORT ACCOUNT AND THE TRIBAL ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT 

A "yes" vote supports legalizing online and mobile sports betting for persons 21 years of age 
or older, establishing regulations for the mobile sports betting industry, imposing a 10% tax 
on sports betting revenues and licensing fees, and allocating tax revenue to an account for 
homelessness programs and an account for tribes not operating sports betting. 

A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in 
California. What would Proposition 27 do?
Proposition 27 proposes a constitutional amendment and statute to authorize a gaming 
tribe, an online sports betting platform with an operating agreement with a gaming tribe, 
or a qualified gaming company with a market access agreement with a gaming tribe may 
operate online sports betting for individuals 21 years of age or older in the state but outside 
of Indian lands. The amendment would prohibit online sports betting on youth sports. The 
proposed law would create the Division of Online Sports Betting Control within the Department 
of Justice. The initiative would give the division authority to regulate the online sports 
betting industry and investigate illegal sports betting activities. The amendment would take 
effect on January 1, 2023.[1]
The proposed law would establish the California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund. The 
revenue from licensing fees, renewals, and the sports wagering tax would be deposited into 
the fund. After deducting regulatory costs, 85% of the fund's revenues would be allocated to 
California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account for permanent 
and interim housing and 15% of revenues to the Tribal Economic Development Account, 
which would be established by the initiative to provide funds to Indian tribes for expanding 
tribal government, public health, education, infrastructure, and economic development.[1]
Currently, mobile and in-person sports betting is illegal in California. 

PROP 28 REQUIRES FUNDING FOR K-12 ART AND MUSIC EDUCATION 

A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to:

• require an annual source of funding for K-12 public schools for arts and music education 
equal to, at minimum, 1% of the total state and local revenues that local education 
agencies receive under Proposition 98;
• distribute a portion of the additional funding based on a local education agency's 
share of economically disadvantaged students; and
• require schools with 500 or more students to use 80% of the funding for employing 
teachers and 20% to training and materials. 
A "no" vote opposes requiring an annual source of funding for K-12 public schools for arts 
and music education equal to, at minimum, 1% of the total state and local revenues that local 
education agencies receive under Proposition 98.

Proposition 28 would require a minimum source of annual funding for K-12 public schools, 
including charter schools, to fund arts education programs. The annual minimum amount 
established by the law would be equal to, at minimum, 1% of the total state and local revenues 
that local education agencies received under Proposition 98 (1988) during the prior fiscal year. 
The minimum under the proposed law would be in addition to the funding required by Proposition 
98. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the ballot initiative would likely result 
in increased spending of $800 million to $1 billion each fiscal year.[2]
How does Proposition 98 relate to school funding?
See also: California Proposition 98, Mandatory Education Spending Initiative (1988)
In 1988, Californians approved Proposition 98 by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3%. Proposition 
98 amended the state constitution to require a minimum percentage of the state budget to be 
spent on K-14 education (kindergarten through two-year community college), which is referred 
to as the minimum guarantee. Proposition 98 established two formulas or tests to determine 
the minimum guarantee, which is the highest funding level produced by Test 1 or Test 2. Test 1 
links the minimum guarantee to about 40% of the state General Fund, which is equal to California's 
1986-87 funding level of public education. Test 2 calculates the minimum guarantee 
by adjusting the prior year's minimum guarantee by student attendance and changes in the 
cost of living.[3] 

PROP 29 HEALTHCARE ENACTS STAFFING, REPORTIIG REQUIREMENTS 
AND OWNERHIP DISCLOSURE FOR DIALYSIS CLINICS 

A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to have at least one 
physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant while patients are being treated; report 
data on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source 
of payment for care. 

A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, 
nurse practitioner, or physician assistant while patients are being treated; report data 
on dialysis-related infections; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of 
payment for care. 

Proposition 29 would enact staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, 
and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics, including:[1]

• requiring clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant 
- with at least six months of experience with end-stage renal disease care - onsite during 
patient treatments;
• requiring clinics to report dialysis-related infections to the California Department of 
Public Health (CDPH);
• requiring clinics to provide patients with a list of physicians with an ownership interest 
of 5% or more in the clinic;
• requiring clinics to provide the CDPH with a list of persons with ownership interest 
of 5% or more in the clinic; and 
• requiring clinics to obtain the CDPH's written consent before closing or substantially 
reducing services to patients.
The ballot initiative would also prohibit clinics from refusing to care for a patient based on 
the patient's form of payment, whether the patient is an individual payer, the patient's health 
insurer, Medi-Cal, Medicaid, or Medicare.[1] 
In 2020, 63.4% of voters rejected Proposition 23, which was also sponsored by SEIU-UHW. 
Proposition 23 would have required chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician 
while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent 

from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients 
based on the source of payment for care.[2]
In 2018, SEIU-UHW also sponsored Proposition 8, which was defeated with 59.9% of voters 
rejecting it. Proposition 8 would have required dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients 
or patients' payers for revenue above 115% of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare 
improvements.[3] 

PROP 30 TAXES AND TRANSPORTATION INCREASES TAX ON PERSONAL 
INCOME ABOVE $2MILLION BY 1.75% AND REVENUE TO ZERO EMMISSION 
VEHICLE PROJECTS AND WILDLIFE PREVENTION 

A "yes" vote supports increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% 
and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, 
such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention 
programs. 

A "no" vote opposes increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% 
and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, 
such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention 
programs. 

Proposition 30 would increase the income tax by an additional 1.75% on income above $2 
million for individuals. Currently, income above $2 million for individuals is taxed at a rate 
of 13.3% in California. The additional tax would take effect on January 1, 2023. The initiative 
provides that the tax would end on the earliest of the following dates:[1]
• January 1, 2043, or 

• January 1 after three consecutive calendar years after January 1, 2030, of statewide 
emissions reduced by 80% of 1990 levels.
Revenue from the increased income tax would be appropriated into the Clean Cars and 
Clean Air Trust Fund (CCCATF). It would then be allocated to the following three sub-
funds: Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund (35% of revenue), 
Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund (45% of revenue), and Wildfire Green 
House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund (20% of revenue). The sub-funds would fund 
zero-emission vehicles, charging stations, and infrastructure, as well as hiring and training 
firefighters.[1] 
PROPOSITION 31 TOBACCO BAN ON FLAVORED TOBACCO SALES 

A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would 
ban the sale of flavored tobacco products. 

A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), thus keeping the 
sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state. 

Opponents of Proposition 31 seek to overturn Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which was signed 
into law on August 28, 2020. SB 793 was designed to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products 
and tobacco product flavor enhancers, with exceptions for hookah tobacco, loose leaf 
tobacco, and premium cigars. Retailers would be fined $250 for each sale violating the law.[1] 

The California State Legislature passed SB 793 in August 2020. The legislation received support 
from most legislative Democrats (84 of 89) and a quarter of legislative Republicans (8 
of 30). One legislator voted against the bill, and the remaining legislators were absent or 
abstained. State Sen. Jerry Hill (D-13), the legislative sponsor of SB 793, said, "Using candy, 
fruit and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new 
generation into nicotine addiction while keeping longtime users hooked. SB 793 breaks Big 
Tobacco’s death grip."[2] The California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, which opposed SB 
793, described the flavored tobacco ban as "misguided policy that will do more harm than 
good" and "hurt small businesses, eliminate necessary tax revenue, and perpetuate dangerous 
and avoidable police interactions in our communities."[3] 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEASURE C IS ON THE BALLOT AS A REFERRAL 
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022. 

A "yes" vote supports enacting taxes on marijuana businesses in the unincorporated 
areas of Los Angeles County, including $10 per square foot for cultivation; a 6% tax on gross 
retail receipts; a 2% tax on testing facilities' gross receipts; a 3% tax on gross distribution 
receipts; and a 4% tax on the gross reciepts of manufacturing and other marijuana business 
facilities. 

A "no" vote opposes enacting taxes on marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas 
of Los Angeles County. 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEASURE A IS ON THE BALLOT AS A REFERRAL 
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022. 

A "yes" vote supports allowing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, by a four-
fifths vote, to remove the sheriff from office for cause, which is defined to include: violation 
of laws related to the sheriff's duties; repeated neglect of the sheriff's duties; misuse of 
public funds or properties; willful falsification of documents; or obstruction of an investigation 
into the department's conduct. 

A "no" vote opposes allowing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, by a four-
fifths vote, to remove the sheriff from office for cause. 

Overview 
Measure A would allow the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to vote to remove the 
elected sheriff from office for cause. The vote requirement to remove the sheriff would be 
four-fifths. As of 2022, the County Board of Supervisors included five members, meaning 
an affirmative vote of four members would be needed. Measure A would define cause to 
include:[1]

• violation of laws related to the sheriff's duties; 
• repeated neglect of the sheriff's duties; 
• misuse of public funds or properties; 
• willful falsification of documents; or 
• obstruction of an investigation into the department's conduct 
• 
LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEASURE PCC IS ON THE BALLOT AS A REFERRAL 
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022. 

A "yes" vote supports authorizing the Pasadena Area Community College to issue $565 
million dollars in bonds with bond revenue going to fund school facilities and requiring an 
estimated property tax levy of $20 per $100,000 of assessed value. 

A "no" vote opposes authorizing the Pasadena Area Community College to issue $565 
million dollars in bonds with bond revenue going to fund school facilities and requiring an 
estimated property tax levy of $20 per $100,000 of assessed value.
• 
A 55% vote is required for the approval of Measure PCC. 


Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 
Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com