Ballot Propositions - Nov 2022 - part 1
I've written a few blogs recently about ballot propositions in California: what ballot props are, and problems that can make them thorny to decide on. I started this series as a slow roll leading up to election day, meaning to spend time examining each of the props. Alas I rolled a bit too slow. Election day is just two days away, and I haven't written anything about specific races or measures yet. Thus I'll group together the 7 statewide measures in two blogs.
Prop 1: Protect Abortion Rights: HELL YES!
Proposition 1 is a state constitutional amendment to explicitly recognize an individual's right to reproductive freedom. There's so much I could write about why I'm voting HELL YES on this (technically I'm just voting "Yes"; there isn't a super-like option on the ballot) but I'm not going to bother. It's just the right thing to do.
Prop 26: Legalize Sports Betting in Tribal Casinos: No.
Proposition 26 is one of two measures on the ballot this election cycle to expand gambling in the state. I'm not opposed to gambling in general but I'm also not opposed to the status quo of how gambling is limited in California. Prop 26 would increase the scope of casino-style gaming allowed at tribal casinos to include roulette and dice games such as craps. It would also allow betting on horse racing at horse racetracks. If this was all the measure did, if it was a simple and clean expansion of gambling, I'd probably support it. But it's not clean. The measure includes opaque language about allowing private lawsuits over gaming regulations. That seems designed as self-dealing by the wealthiest casinos, generally those backed by out-of-state gambling mega-corporations, sue smaller competitors out of business. This stench of industry self-dealing is what turns me against this one. Follow the money. Unsurprisingly it's backed by record amounts of money from casino interests- though not all of them; just the ones that expect they'd get to wear the boot.
Prop 27: Legalize Online & Mobile Sports Betting: Heck No.
Proposition 27 is even more of a self-dealing stinker than prop 26. Prop 27 would explicitly allow out-of-state organizations to offer gambling online and through mobile apps to Californians. Gambling has a dark side to it. In California, under the status quo, that dark side is somewhat addressed by gaming creating local jobs and a portion of profits being required to be put into fighting the ills of problem gambling. This expansion of gambling would cause a commensurately large increase in the ills of gambling- but with operations being shifted to out-of-state businesses (including cronyistic accounting secrecy provisions in the measure) we'd lose the ability to mitigate the downsides. Follow the money: out-of-state mega casinos are bankrolling this, along with the few tribes who already have business partnerships with themt. Who's opposing it? Like, everyone else! It's notable that both major political parties and all the big newspapers in California oppose prop 27. Strong no on this one.
Prop 1: Protect Abortion Rights: HELL YES!
Proposition 1 is a state constitutional amendment to explicitly recognize an individual's right to reproductive freedom. There's so much I could write about why I'm voting HELL YES on this (technically I'm just voting "Yes"; there isn't a super-like option on the ballot) but I'm not going to bother. It's just the right thing to do.
Prop 26: Legalize Sports Betting in Tribal Casinos: No.
Proposition 26 is one of two measures on the ballot this election cycle to expand gambling in the state. I'm not opposed to gambling in general but I'm also not opposed to the status quo of how gambling is limited in California. Prop 26 would increase the scope of casino-style gaming allowed at tribal casinos to include roulette and dice games such as craps. It would also allow betting on horse racing at horse racetracks. If this was all the measure did, if it was a simple and clean expansion of gambling, I'd probably support it. But it's not clean. The measure includes opaque language about allowing private lawsuits over gaming regulations. That seems designed as self-dealing by the wealthiest casinos, generally those backed by out-of-state gambling mega-corporations, sue smaller competitors out of business. This stench of industry self-dealing is what turns me against this one. Follow the money. Unsurprisingly it's backed by record amounts of money from casino interests- though not all of them; just the ones that expect they'd get to wear the boot.
Prop 27: Legalize Online & Mobile Sports Betting: Heck No.
Proposition 27 is even more of a self-dealing stinker than prop 26. Prop 27 would explicitly allow out-of-state organizations to offer gambling online and through mobile apps to Californians. Gambling has a dark side to it. In California, under the status quo, that dark side is somewhat addressed by gaming creating local jobs and a portion of profits being required to be put into fighting the ills of problem gambling. This expansion of gambling would cause a commensurately large increase in the ills of gambling- but with operations being shifted to out-of-state businesses (including cronyistic accounting secrecy provisions in the measure) we'd lose the ability to mitigate the downsides. Follow the money: out-of-state mega casinos are bankrolling this, along with the few tribes who already have business partnerships with themt. Who's opposing it? Like, everyone else! It's notable that both major political parties and all the big newspapers in California oppose prop 27. Strong no on this one.