Tribune endorsements: A quick guide to the 7 statewide propositions

Mercifully, there are fewer statewide propositions on the California ballot this time around — seven as opposed to a dozen in the 2020 General Election. Those included hotly contested issues like affirmative action and the employment status of app-based drivers.

This year, dueling propositions that would legalize sports betting are attracting the most money — and creating much confusion for voters.

Here’s a summary of all the measures on the 2022 ballot measure, along with our recommendations:

Proposition 1: Would enshrine in the California Constitution a right “to choose whether or not to have an abortion and use contraceptives” — a right that is now not guaranteed on the national level. YES

Proposition 26: Would legalize in-person sports betting at casinos run by Native American tribes and at select race tracks. Independent cardrooms — a source of revenue for local government agencies — say language in the measure also would allow tribal casinos to file lawsuits against them that could put cardrooms out of business. NO

Proposition 27: Would allow both licensed tribes and gambling companies to offer online sports betting. The measure is heavily backed by online gambling companies FanDuel and DraftKings, which have poured more than $50 million into the campaign.

All told, nearly $450 million has been contributed to campaigns for and against Props. 26 and 27, making it the most expensive ballot fight in California history. NO

Proposition 28: Would require California to allocate at least 1% of school funding to art and music education, amounting to approximately $1 billion per year. At least 90% of the money distributed to schools would have to fund art or music programs; only 1% could be used for administration. YES

Proposition 29: Requires dialysis clinics to keep a doctor, nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant on-site during operating hours. The requirement would significantly increase expenses for dialysis clinics; opponents estimate the statewide cost increase would be between $229 million and $445 million a year.

If this ballot measure sounds familiar, it should. This is the third time in four years that voters have been asked to weigh in on the issue. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West is behind Prop. 29 and its predecessors. NO

Proposition 30: Would tax Californians earning more than $2 million per year an additional 1.75%, generating between $3.5 billion and $5 billion per year for clean air efforts: 45% to incentives for electric vehicle purchases, 35% to build charging stations and 20% to wildfire mitigation.

The campaign has been heavily funded by Lyft. Like Uber and other ride-hailing services, it faces a 2030 deadline to convert most of its vehicles from gasoline to electric. If we’re going to soak the rich, let’s do it for a reason other than private gain. NO

Proposition 31: Would ban the sale of menthol cigarettes and candy-flavored tobacco products, which are vastly preferred by young smokers and can lead to lifelong addiction.

The issue wound up on the ballot in a roundabout way: The California Legislature passed a statewide ban in 2020, but before it could take effect, the tobacco industry financed a signature-gathering campaign to put the issue in front of voters. A yes vote will uphold the legislation and allow the ban to go into effect; no will repeal it and permit the products to stay on shelves. YES