Pete Rates the Propositions
Sensible opinions on the California ballot propositions      since 1980      by Pete Stahl

Read the ratings:
Prop.   1 - YES
Prop. 26 - NO
Prop. 27 - NO
Prop. 28 - NO
Prop. 29 - NO
Prop. 30 - YES
Prop. 31 - YES
Election resources
About the author
Best of Pete Rates
Past results
Contact Pete
Previous elections:
November 2020
March 2020
November 2018
June 2018
November 2016
June 2016
November 2014
June 2014
November 2012
June 2012
November 2010
June 2010
May 2009
November 2008
June 2008
February 2008
November 2006
June 2006
November 2005
November 2004
March 2004

Pete Rates the Propositions
November 2022

Pete recommends:
1   YES   Guarantee Right to Abortion
26   NO   Sports Wagering: Indian Tribes
27   NO   Sports Wagering: Gaming Companies
28   NO   Arts and Music Education Earmark
29   NO   Dialysis Clinic Regulation (Yet Again!)
30   YES   Tax High Earners to Subsidize EVs
31   YES   Ban Flavored Tobacco Products

Proposition 1: Guarantee Right to Abortion – YES

Summary: Writes into the state Constitution the rights “to choose to have an abortion” and “to choose or refuse contraceptives.” Because these rights are already protected by legislative statutes and state Supreme Court interpretations, there will be no practical effect in the near term. But, should the political landscape ever change, Prop 1 will prevent future legislatures and courts from revoking these rights without a vote of the people.

Details: coming soon.

Proposition 26: Sports Wagering: Indian Tribes – NO
Proposition 27: Sports Wagering: Gaming Companies – NO

Summary: These initiatives were written by gaming operators for their own benefit, and an enormous benefit it would be. Both propositions would legalize betting on sports such as pro and college football games. Prop 26 would require bets to be made in person at existing racetracks or tribal casinos. Prop 27 would permit online betting everywhere via mega-websites such as DraftKings and Bally’s. In both cases, the state would receive a small portion of net proceeds, earmarked for motherhood and apple pie (education, homelessness, gambling addiction, etc.). The backers of these initiatives have spent one quarter of a billion dollars on their campaigns, which can mean only one thing: they expect profits far greater than that. Vote no on both, and let the Legislature strike a better deal than these lopsided schemes.

Details: coming soon.

Proposition 28: Arts and Music Education Earmark – NO

Summary: Requires the Legislature to allocate an additional $1 billion to public school arts and music every year, with no new revenue sources. The ends may be laudable, but the means are terrible. Prop 28 is budgeting by ballot box, which ties legislators’ hands, imposes absurd spending priorities, and ratchets up the pain during budget emergencies.

Details: coming soon.

Proposition 29: Dialysis Clinic Regulation (Yet Again!) – NO

Summary: A third ham-handed attempt by the union SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West to exact revenge on dialysis giants Fresenius and DaVita (no angels themselves) in retaliation for resisting unionization. Prop 29 would impose new costs on the clinics by requiring more expensive medical staff on-site at all times. There’s no evidence this is necessary, so I cannot recommend voting for it.

Details: coming soon.

Proposition 30: Tax High Earners to Subsidize EVs – YES

Summary: Prop 30 temporarily bumps up the tax rate on personal income above $2 million in order to accelerate California’s conversion to electric vehicles (EVs). The revenue will be spent for rebates on new EVs, building charging stations, and wildfire prevention and response, with an emphasis on assisting those in heavily polluted and/or low income communities. The goal is to put EVs within reach of working-class Californians, particularly rideshare drivers, who must migrate to EVs by 2030. Prop 30 is neither a giveaway to Lyft nor an attack on public schools. It’s a key step toward the ubiquitous charging infrastructure we need so everyone, not just the well-off, can transition away from gasoline and diesel.

Details: coming soon.

Proposition 31: Ban Flavored Tobacco Products – YES

Summary: Prop 31 would ban flavored cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vape pods, and chewing tobacco. These are currently offered in child-friendly flavors like cotton candy, mango, and menthol. More than three-quarters of middle and high school students who smoke use flavored products. They are a reliable gateway to lifelong tobacco addiction, which remains the leading cause of preventable deaths in California. Local bans of flavored products have proven effective in reducing school-age smoking and vaping. Let’s build on that success.

Details: coming soon.

Copyright © 1980-2022  Peter L. Stahl
Your comments are welcome at