Part of the California 2022 ballot included a series of Propositions that voters could vote for, or against. CalMatters provided information about the various Propositions.
Proposition 1: Putting abortion safeguards in the California constitution:
After the news leaked in early May that the U.S. Supreme Court was planning to rule that the federal constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to an abortion – and it did reverse the five-decade-old president on June 24 – California’s top Democrats, vowing to “fight like hell,” proposed adding the protection to the state constitution.
The proposed constitutional amendment was introduced in the Legislature in early June and was passed with the overwhelming support of both chambers by the end of the month. If approved by voters, it would bar the state from denying or interfering with a person’s right to choose an abortion and contraceptives.
California has long been a safe haven for abortion access. In 1969 the state Supreme Court ruled that the California’s constitution’s right to privacy implies the right to an abortion. Reproductive access is also protected by statute. Supporters hope this amendment will reiterate that policy more explicitly and render it harder to reverse in the future, though some legal scholars say the language is still too ambiguous.
Ballotpedia reported about the results of Proposition 1:
Proposition 1: Provide a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, defined to include abortion and contraceptives.
Yes Votes: 7,176,883 (67%) – Approved
No Votes: 3,553,561 (33%)
WHY WAS IT ON THE BALLOT?
CalMatters reported: There is already a right to privacy guaranteed in the California Constitution, but it is not explicitly defined. Historically, the language has been understood to preserve reproductive rights, including through a decision by the California Supreme Court. Abortion and contraception access were later expressly protected in state law.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in June overturning Roe v. Wade, however, has raised fears that a change in legal interpretation or partisan control of the now-overwhelmingly Democratic state Legislature could undermine those protections for Californians in the future.
Backed by abortion rights advocates and Gov. Gavin Newsom, lawmakers rushed to place Proposition 1 on the ballot to ensure that reproductive health care remains a constitutional right in California.
Proposition 26: Legalize sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California
After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning state-regulated sports betting, two big spending interests stepped up with California legalization proposals.
CalMatters reported that Prop. 26, supported by some of the state’s tribal governments, would only legalize sports betting in-person at tribal casinos and designated horse tracks. The measure, which would also allow tribes to offer roulette and other dice games, would raise potentially tens of millions of dollars for the state budget, most of which would be spend at the discretion of the governor and Legislature.
Ballotpedia provided information about Proposition 26:
Proposition 26: Legalize sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California
Yes Votes: 3,514,593 votes (33%)
No Votes: 7,129,122 votes (67%) – Defeated
CalMatters wrote about what Proposition 25 would have done:
Proposition 26 would have allowed tribal casinos and the state’s four horse race tracks to offer in-person sports betting. At race racks, sports betting could only be offered to people 21 or older. Age restrictions on sports betting at tribal casinos would need to be negotiated by California’s governor and each tribe, and written into each tribe’s compact with the state.
The proposition would also have allowed tribal casinos to begin offering roulette and dice games, including craps.
It taxes sports bets placed at horse race tracks. It doesn’t tax tribes, which are sovereign nations, but it requires tribes to reimburse the state for the cost of regulating sports betting.
The proposition would also have created a new way of enforcing some gaming laws, allowing anyone to bring a lawsuit if they believe the laws are being violated and the state Justice Department declines to act. Any penalty and settlement money that results would go to the state.
State analysts say the proposition could generate as much as tens of millions annually for the state. It’s difficult to know the exact amount for a few reasons. New tribal-state compacts might require tribes to pay more to local governments, for example, and it’s unclear how much money will result from the new private lawsuits. The revenue would first be spent on education spending commitments and regulatory costs. If there’s any money left over, it would go to the state’s discretionary fund, as well as to problem gaming and mental health research, and the enforcement of gaming rules.
WHY WAS IT ON THE BALLOT?
Tribes have long had the exclusive right to offer certain forms of gambling in California, including slot machines and certain card games, such as 21 and baccarat. But sports betting – besides horse racing – isn’t legal in California currently.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could legalize sports betting in 2018, 35 states plus Washington D.C. have made the leap. In California, lawmakers tried to negotiate a deal on sports betting in 2020, but weren’t able to work it out in time to get a measure on the ballot.
Proposition 27: Legalize Online and Mobile Sports Betting In California
Proposition 27: Legalize online and mobile sports betting in California
Yes: 1,906,339 (18%)
No: 8,849,200 (82%) – Defeated
CalMatters reported: Voters didn’t just Proposition 27, they defeated it by one of the largest margins for initiatives, with 82% opposed.
WHAT WOULD IT HAVE DONE?
CalMatters reported: Prop 27 would have allowed licensed tribes and gaming companies to offer mobile and online sports betting for adults 21 and older outside Native American tribal lands. Gaming companies – such as FanDuel and DraftKings – could only offer sports betting if they made a deal with a tribe.
The measure creates extremely high thresholds for gaming companies to do business in California, making it all but impossible for smaller gaming companies to compete.
The proposition would have created a new division within the state’s Justice Department to regulate online sports wagering. That division could also decide whether to approve new forms of gambling, such as betting on awards shows and video games. It also gives the Justice Department additional powers to address illegal sports betting.
Tribes and gaming companies would pay fees and taxes to the state that could total several hundred million dollars a year, state analysts estimate. The actual amount is uncertain, in part because gaming operators are allowed to deduct certain expenses to reduce their tax bill.
After covering the state’s new regulatory costs, most of the money would be used to address homelessness and for gambling addiction programs, while 15% would go to Native American tribes that aren’t involved in sports betting.
WHY WAS IT ON THE BALLOT?
Sports betting – other than horse racing – isn’t legal in California currently.
California lawmakers tried to negotiate a deal on sports betting in 2020, but weren’t able to work one out in time to get a measure on the ballot. Then came a rush of groups trying to qualify their own sports betting initiatives for the 2022 election. Ultimately, two different measures made it onto the ballot. Prop. 27 would allow online sports betting across the state, while Prop. 26 would allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and horse race tracks. If both passed, both would go into effect, but in all likelihood a court would decide.
Proposition 28: Require funding for K-12 art and music education
Proposition 28: Require funding for K-12 art and music education
Yes: 6,924,613 votes (64%) – Approved
No: 3,827,964 votes (36%)
CalMatters provided information about Proposition 28: Set aside school funding for arts and music:
Sponsored by former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent Austin Beutner, this measure would require the state to set aside a share of its revenue – likely between $800 million to $1 billion per year – for arts and education classes. The new money would be disproportionately reserved for schools with many low-income students to hire new arts staff.
Ballotpedia provided information about Proposition 28:
What did Proposition 28 do?
Proposition 28 required 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 was 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 was in addition to the funding required by Proposition 98. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the ballot initiative would result in increased spending of $800 million to $1 billion each fiscal year.
How did Proposition 98 relate to school funding?
In 1988, Californians approved Proposition 98 by a margin of 50.7% to 49.4%. 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.
Who supported and opposed Proposition 28?
Yes on 28 – Californians for Arts and Music in Schools led the Vote Arts and Minds campaign in support of the initiative. The campaign received endorsements from former Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District Austin Beutner, former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D), the California Teachers Association, and several celebrities and musicians.
Beutner and Duncan said in a joint statement, “Only 1 in 5 public schools in California has a dedicated teacher for traditional arts programs like music, dance, theater and art, or newer forms of creative expression like computer graphics, animation, coding, costume design and filmmaking… This initiative is timely as our country seeks to create a more just and equitable future for all children. A boost in arts and music education will help ensure the future workforce in media and technology properly reflect the diversity of the children in our public schools.”
The campaign reported receiving over $10.6 million in contributions according to its latest campaign finance filings. Ballotpedia has not identified any committees registered in opposition to the initiative.
Proposition 29: Enact staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics
Proposition 29: Enact staffing requirements, reporting requirements, ownership disclosure, and closing requirements for chronic dialysis clinics
Yes: 3,364,404 (32%) votes
No: 7,281,196 (68%) votes – Defeated
CalMatters reported: Proposition 29: Kidney clinic rules, third time’s a charm?
This measure slaps dialysis clinics with a host of new restrictions, including a requirement that a doctor, nurse practitioner, or a physician assistant be on side during all treatment hours. Centers would also be required to get state approval before reducing services and to publicly list any doctors who have at least a 5% ownership stake in a clinic.
Sound familiar? That’s because the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union supporting this measure, has tried and failed to persuade voters to support new dialysis center regulations twice before, in 2018 and 2020, over vehement and very costly industry opposition.
CalMatters provided additional information about Proposition 29:
This is the third time since 2018 that a measure similar to Proposition 29 failed, with 68% voting “no” this year.
WHAT WOULD IT HAVE DONE?
This measure would have required kidney dialysis clinics to have at least one physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant with six months of relevant experience available on site or, in some cases, via Telehealth. It would also have required that clinics report infection data to the state, a well as publicly list physicians who have ownership interest of 5% or more in a clinic. The measure also would have prohibited clinics from closing or reducing services without state approval and from refusing treatment to people based on their insurance type.
WHY WAS IT ON THE BALLOT?
This is the third time a labor union, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, goes after dialysis clinics via the ballot process. The union says it wants to reform the booming industry and increase transparency, while dialysis companies that spent millions to defeat the two prior measures say it’s a union ploy to pressure clinics and organize dialysis workers.
There are about 650 dialysis clinics across the state and about 80,000 Californians receive the life-saving treatment. State analysts estimate that the clinics have total revenue of about $3.5 billion a year and that two private, for-profit companies – DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care – own or operate about. three-fourths of the clinics.
Proposition 30: Create a 1.75% tax on personal income above $2 million and allocate revenue for zero-emissions vehicle and wildfire programs.
Proposition 30: Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative (2022)
Yes: 4,560,483 votes (42.37%)
No: 6,203,806 votes (57.63%) – Defeated
CalMatters posted information about Proposition 30:
Millionaires paying for electric cars: This measure would impose a new 1.75% tax on any individual’s income of more than $2 million per year to raise between $3 billion to $4.5 billion each year to fund a collection of greenhouse gas reducing initiatives. Most of the money would go toward new incentives for Californians to buy zero-emission vehicles and to build new electric charging or hydrogen fueling stations. (Lyft, which is required to move toward ZEV’s is a major funder). A quarter of the new money would go toward wildfire fighting and prevention efforts.
Ballotpedia provided information about Proposition 30:
What would Proposition 30 have done?
Proposition 30 would have increased the income tax by an additional 1.75% on income over $2 million for individuals. At the time of the election, income above $2 million for individuals was taxed at the rate of 13.3% in California. The additional tax would have taken effect on January 1, 2023. The initiative provides that the tax would have ended on the earliest of the following dates:
- 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 have been appropriated into the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund (CCCAFT). It would then have been 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 have funded zero-emission vehicles, charging stations, and infrastructure, as well as hiring training firefighters.
Who supported and opposed Proposition 30?
Yes on 30: Clean Air California led the campaign in support of Proposition 30. It received endorsements from the California State Association of Electrical Workers and California Environmental Voters. Two other committees also registered in support of Proposition 30: Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs, and California Environmental Voters Issues Committee. Together the committees reported $48.1 million in contributions.
Lyft was the top contributor with $45.2 million in contributions. Bill Magavern, one of the authors of the initiative, said, “We need to protect the health of Californians. California needs to step up to protect its own. The state is doing a lot to reduce harmful emissions but the budget, even with the governor making the commitment he has, is insufficient to address these problems.”
There are two committees registered in opposition to Proposition 30: No on 30 and No on 30 – Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts. The committees reported $31.9 million in contributions. Proposition 30 has received opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the California Teachers Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Gov. Newsom (D), said, “Prop. 30 is a special interest carve-out – a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company… Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure.”
Proposition 31: Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)
Proposition 31: Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum
Yes: 6,803,425 (63.42%) – Approved
No: 3,923,383 (36.58%)
CalMatters provided information about Proposition 31: Reconsidering a flavored tobacco ban:
In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill banning the sale of all flavored tobacco products, whether smoked, chewed or vaped. The tobacco industry gathered enough signatures to ask voters to overturn the law with this referendum. (A reminder: Voting “yes” is to keep the law; voting “no” is to get rid of it.)
CalMatters reported about the Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum
WHAT WILL IT DO?
The referendum decided whether to overturn a 2020 law that prohibits the sale of some flavored tobacco products. A “yes” vote upheld the current law; a “no” would have struck down the law and allow the sale of flavored tobacco products.
The approval of Prop. 31 will impact the state budget because the state could lose as much as $100 million in annual tobacco tax revenue from the sale of flavored tobacco.
WHY WAS IT ON THE BALLOT?
In 2020, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law to ban the sale of certain flavored tobacco products – including those made to taste like cotton candy, honey, and mango – as well as menthol cigarettes, both in stores and vending machines.
The ban includes flavored cigarettes, e-cigarettes, pods for vape pens, tank-based systems and chewing tobacco. The law does not affect premium handmade cigars, loose leaf tobacco and hookah tobacco sold by certain hookah tobacco retailers and used at the store.
The law was intended to keep flavored tobacco away from kids and teens, who report in high numbers that they often started smoking with a flavored product. According to Tobacco Free Kids, youth smokers 12 to 17 use menthol cigarettes more than other age groups. At least 60 cities and counties across California have already banned the sale of some flavored tobacco products and menthol cigarettes.
The law has not yet gone into effect because tobacco companies funded and qualified this referendum. After Prop. 31 passed, R.J. Reynolds sued the state over the ban.
Ballotpedia provided information about the Post-Election lawsuit that took place after Prop. 31:
On November 9, 2022, R.J. Reynolds filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the approved ban violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clauses. The lawsuit says, “The ban falls under the TCA’s express preemption clause, ‘which preempts’ any [state] requirement’ that is ‘different from, or in addition to’ a federal requirement about a tobacco product standard. A flavor ban is a paradigmatic tobacco product standard.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement, “Time and time again, Big Tobacco has attempted to steam roll state efforts to protect our youngest residents from the damaging effects of tobacco use. While we have not yet been formally served with the lawsuit, we look forward to vigorously defending this important law in court.”
On November 29, 2022, R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to ask the court to order an emergency stop on the state from enforcing the flavored tobacco ban.
On December 12, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to not issue an emergency order stopping the ban.
Ballotpedia provided an Overview about Proposition 31:
Opponents of Proposition 31 sought 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. The bill was designed to fine retailers $250 for each sale violating the law.
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 uses hooked. SB 793 breaks Big Tobacco’s death grip.”
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.”
No on Prop 31 – Californians Against Prohibition is campaigning for the veto referendum to repeal SB 793. Through October 27, 2022, the campaign had received over $23.2 million, including $9.7 million from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and $9.5 million from Philip Morris USA.
SUPPORT FOR THE “YES” VOTE
Yes On Proposition 31, Committee to Protect California Kids led the campaign in support of a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 31, which upheld the legislation.
SUPPORTERS
Officials: Governor Gavin Newsom (D)
Political Parties:
- Democratic Party of California
- Peace and Freedom Party of California
Unions:
- California Teachers Association
- SEIU California State Council
Organizations: League of Women Voters of California
ARGUMENTS
- Lindsey Freitas, advocacy director for Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: “We know Big Tobacco has hidden behind smoke and lies for years to hook generations of young people on deadly tobacco products, and this referendum is just one more tactic to continue the status quo.”
- State Sen. Gerald Hill (D-13): “California fought Big Tobacco and won. This shameless industry is a sore loser and it is relentless. It wants to keep killing people with its candy-, fruit-, mint-, and menthol-flavored poison. The adults who are hooked on nicotine aren’t enough for Big Tobacco; it wants our kids too.”
- Jim Knox, managing director of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network Inc.: “The tobacco industry has always shown it will go to any length to decide the public about its deadly product. We are too confident that if it gets the ballot, that California voters will see through this despicable tobacco industry ploy to continue to lure kids into a lifetime of tobacco addiction.”
- Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): “Big Tobacco has been targeting our kids, trying to hook our kids on tobacco products, killing literally a generation. It’s time for us to stand up and protect our kids and to push back against Big Tobacco, not just in terms of their efforts to go after our kids but their racist marketing. Enough’s enough, this is about as easy a question that we’ll be asked this November.”
The official argument in support of Proposition 31 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:
Official Voter Information Guide: YES ON 31. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association in California, and the American Heart Association support YES on 31 because it will save lives. Yes on 31 protects kids by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and minty-menthol cigarettes. Big Tobacco uses candy-flavored products to target kids – including cotton candy, chocolate, strawberry, and minty-menthol – and lure them into a lifelong addiction to nicotine. In fact, 4 of 5 kids who have used tobacco started with a flavored product. Get the facts at VoteYesOn31.com.
YES ON 31 PROTECTS KIDS FROM GETTING HOOKED ON HIGHLY ADDICTIVE NICOTINE Tobacco companies use candy flavors to hide strong hits of nicotine, a highly addictive drug that is especially dangerous for kids, harming brain development and impacting their attention, mood, and impulse control. With a Yes on 31 vote, we can stop Big Tobacco from using flavors to get kids hooked on nicotine and profiting from addiction, disease, and death.
In California, almost all high school e-cigarette users prefer flavored products. Today – over 2 million middle and high school students nationwide use e-cigarettes. The American Lung Association in California says, “Using candy flavors to trick kids into trying nicotine is the cornerstone of Big Tobacco’s deadly business model. Yes on 31 will save lives – protecting kids from ever getting hooked on tobacco in the first place.”
YES ON 31 SAVES LIVES AND TAXPAYER MONEY Tobacco is the #1 preventable cause of death in California, where tobacco-related diseases kill 40,000 people each year. Smoking kills more than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined. Of all the kids who become new smokers each year, almost a third will ultimately die from it. Every time Big Tobacco addicts another generation of kids, they put taxpayers, whether they smoke or not, on the hook for billion of dollars in tobacco-related healthcare costs.
YES ON 31 PREVENTS BIG TOBACCO FROM CAUSING MORE HARM TO BLACK COMMUNITIES Big Tobacco preys on Black neighborhoods, spending billions to lobby, advertise and market minty-menthol cigarettes – the original candy-flavored cigarette. In the 1950s, fewer than 10% of Black Americans who smoked used minty-menthols. Today, 85% do.
The NAACP says, “Tobacco companies use minty-menthol to mask the harsh taste of tobacco, which makes smoking easier to start and harder to quit. After targeting African Americans for decades, Big Tobacco is turning an enormous profit – while rates of tobacco-related heart disease, stroke and cancer skyrocket. Yes on 31 will take Big Tobacco’s candy-flavored tools of addiction out of our communities, saving lives and improving public health.”
PROTECT KIDS. VOTE YES ON 31 will protect kids from ever trying tobacco and help users quit – saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually, and saving countless lives. If we can save even a few lives by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco, it will be worth it. — Karmi Ferguson, Executive Director, American Academy of Pediatrics, California; Kathy Rogers, Executive Vice President, American Heart Association; and Jose Ramos, National Board Member, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
SUPPORT FOR THE “NO” VOTE:
The No on Prop 31-Californians Against Prohibition led the campaign in support of a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 31, which would have repealed the legislation.
OPPONENTS
Political Parties: Republican Party of California
Corporations:
- ITG Brands, LLC
- Philip Morris USA, Inc
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
- Swedish Match North America LLC
Organizations
- National Association of Tobacco Outlets
Arguments
- California Coalition for Fairness: “We agree that youth should never have access to any tobacco products, but this can be achieved without imposing a total prohibition on products that millions of adults choose to use. This law goes too far and is unfair, particularly since lawmakers have exempted hookah, expensive cigars, and flavored pipe tobacco from the prohibition. Moreover, a prohibition will hurt small, local businesses and jobs as products are pushed from licensed, conscientious retailer to an underground market, leading to increased youth access, crime and other social or criminal justice concerns for many California residents.”
- Joe Lang, managing partener at Lang, Hansen Giroux & Kidane: “It’s already illegal for anyone under 21 to use any tobacco product flavored or not. Prop 31 is not a ban on flavored tobacco for children – that’s already illegal. It’s a ban on legal regulated sales to adult customers.”
- Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: “Although the law bans the sale of flavored tobacco products to all customers regardless of age, lawmakers named it the “Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act.” They claimed it was needed to stop underage tobacco use – because only kids, apparently, like flavor. To be sure, no one wants children smoking or vaping, but it’s already illegal in California to sell or give tobacco and vapor products to anyone under the age of 21. If prohibition worked, then we wouldn’t have a problem.”
The official argument in opposition to Proposition 31 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:
Official Voter Information Guide: The politicians who wrote Proposition 31 say it will reduce underage tobacco use – but it’s already illegal to sell any tobacco product to anyone under the age of 21 in California, with big penalties for breaking the law.
PROP. 31 IS ADULT PROHIBITION Prop. 31 enacts a sweeping new ban on menthol cigarettes, flavored smokeless tobacco, and other flavored non-tobacco nicotine products for adults over the age of 21. Prohibition has never worked – it didn’t work with alcohol or marijuana, and it won’t work now. And Prop. 31’s prohibition will impact minority neighborhoods more than any other, criminalizing the sale of menthol cigarettes which are primarily the choice of adult tobacco consumers in these communities.
PROP. 31 WILL INCREASE CRIME Almost half of all cigarettes in California are sold in the underground market, smuggled in from other states or countries like China and Mexico. Prop. 31 will drive even more sales underground from licensed neighborhood retailers to gangs and organized crime. What’s worse, Proposition 31 does not add a single penny to law enforcement to fight the violent crime that will follow.
“Proposition 31 is practically unenforceable. It will put criminals in charge and convert a highly regulated tobacco market into an unregulated criminal market, creating unnecessary and potentially dangerous police interactions.” – Edgar Hampton, Retired California Police Officer.
PROP. 31 WILL COST TAXPAYERS A legislative analysis found that Prop. 31 will lead to “significant revenue losses” that will exceed $1 billion in the next four years. That means less money for healthcare, education, programs for seniors and law enforcement.
PROP. 31 Bans FDA AUTHORIZED REDUCED HARM PRODUCTS AND COULD INCREASE CIGARETTE USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE The Food and Drug administration (FDA) now has regulatory authority over tobacco and vapor products and already has banned many flavored tobacco products, but Prop. 31 goes too far – banning the sale of flavored reduced-risk, smoke-free products authorized by the FDA “appropriate for the protection of public health” for adults 21 and over.
When adult consumers are denied access to potentially less harmful products authorized by the FDA, they continue with traditional cigarettes that produce second-hand smoke. San Francisco’s flavor ban is a perfect example of the impact on youth as well: a Yale University study found there was a significant INCREASE in cigarette smoking among high school students – the exact opposite result the politicians promised.
PUBLIC EDUCATION IS BETTER THAN PROP. 31 California led the nation in raising the age to purchase tobacco to 21, has among the toughest anti-tobacco laws in the country, and spends over $140 million a year to help people quit tobacco and stop kids from starting. The results are clear: Youth vaping is down 59% in the last three years, and youth smoking is at an all-time low of just 1.9% according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.
California should not abandon what is clearly working and replace it with a failed policy of the past – prohibition – that will increase crime, cost taxpayers, and backfire on the communities we are trying to protect. Please join us and vote NO on Prop 31 — Michael Genest, Former Director, California Department of Finance; Julian Canete, President, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; and Tom Hudson, President, California Taxpayer Protection Committee.