A first look at the seven state propositions

At least there are only seven. The list of California ballot measures for the November election was finalized last week by Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

We have already made our thoughts known on two of them. For the others, we will meet with representatives in support and opposition before making any recommendations on how to vote.

Here's our first look. Proposition 1 is a response to the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in all 50 states. This proposition would enshrine the right to an abortion in the California Constitution.

However, the state already legalized abortion in 1967. In 2002, the Legislature further passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which effectively codified Roe in state law. The California Supreme Court has also ruled that a right to abortion is protected under the already existing right to privacy in the state constitution.

Proposition 1, then, can easily be perceived as posturing by the state politicians. On the other hand, it raises an important issue for voters to decide. Most Californians generally support lawful access to abortion and many are concerned about the prospects that, some day, settled law could be overturned even in a state like California.

Propositions 26 and 27 would legalize sports gambling, but subject them to varying regulatory schemes. One is backed by corporate entities, the other by California tribes.

In general we favor legalized sports gambling, so we have no qualms about the foundational issue. But we have questions about whether either of these measures are the best way forward.

As Adrian Moore, vice president of the libertarian Reason Foundation, told us, “The initiatives unfortunately both are designed to create a windfall for a narrow slice of the gambling industry that has sponsored them. They would exploit that market power to the detriment of gamblers and taxpayers.”

Proposition 28 would mandate $500 million to $1 billion in arts funding in California's schools. This measure is being championed by former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner.

Proposition 29 would place burdensome rules on kidney dialysis clinics. This is the third time this matter has been placed before voters, having been decisively rejected twice before. This measure is plainly a cynical and disgusting effort by the SEIUUnited Healthcare Workers union to strong-arm dialysis providers. We have already urged voters to reject this measure.

Proposition 30 would slap a new, 1.75% income tax on those making $2 million or more a year. Up to $4.5 billion in new taxes would fund such measures as charging stations for electric cars, as well as a wildfire prevention fund. Ostensibly, this measure is intended to combat the harms of climate change. Do the proponents have a strong case? We'll find out.

Proposition 31 places a 2020 state law Newsom signed banning flavored tobacco products before the voters. A Yes vote keeps in place the law. A No overturns it. Supporters of the law say it's needed to protect the children, but selling nicotine products to children is already illegal. All this law does is deprive adults the freedom to choose flavored nicotine products, including flavored vapes, which studies show can help some people ease out of their more harmful smoking habits. We opposed this bill when the Legislature approved it and we oppose it now. Vote No.