In the Nov. 8 election, voters across California will weigh in on propositions that could impact businesses in various industries across the state.
Tribes, card rooms and national sports betting companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign battle over dueling propositions to legalize sports betting in the state.
Fortune-500-ranked dialysis companies are once again butting heads with a powerful state health care union over new regulations for dialysis clinics, and a greenhouse gas emission proposal is being put before voters on the dime of a major ride-share company.
Here are the statewide propositions to watch on Election Day.
Dueling sports betting propositions When the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that all states could legalize betting on sports in 2018, it opened a floodgate for more than half of U.S. states to pass sports gambling laws.
In California this year, that effort took the form of a race to the ballot box.
Of the handful of propositions that were written and circulated, just two collected enough signatures to make it to the ballot.
Both would legalize sports betting, but they differ in where and how people would be able to place their bets, and how the tax money collected from these bets would be spent.
Proposition 26 would only allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and private horse racetracks.
Tribes would have to renegotiate their individual gambling compacts with the state to hammer out the details around placing the bets, including minimum age requirements, and how much of the revenue would go to the state and local governments.
The revenue the state collects from the bets would go into a newly created fund.
After required state spending on schools and administration for the program, the bulk of the remainder would go into the state’s general fund, and a portion would also go toward gambling addiction programs and gambling enforcement costs.
Support for Proposition 26 comes from more than a dozen tribes, which have put 9 million toward the Yes on 26, No on 27 campaign, according to state campaign finance disclosures.
That includes two local tribes: the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, the tribe that owns Cache Creek Casino Resort in Yolo County, which contributed .6 million in support of Proposition 26; and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the tribe that owns Red Hawk Casino near Placerville, which contributed In the Nov. 8 election, voters across California will weigh in on propositions that could impact businesses in various industries across the state.
Tribes, card rooms and national sports betting companies have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign battle over dueling propositions to legalize sports betting in the state.
Fortune-500-ranked dialysis companies are once again butting heads with a powerful state health care union over new regulations for dialysis clinics, and a greenhouse gas emission proposal is being put before voters on the dime of a major ride-share company.
Here are the statewide propositions to watch on Election Day.
Dueling sports betting propositions When the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that all states could legalize betting on sports in 2018, it opened a floodgate for more than half of U.S. states to pass sports gambling laws.
In California this year, that effort took the form of a race to the ballot box.
Of the handful of propositions that were written and circulated, just two collected enough signatures to make it to the ballot.
Both would legalize sports betting, but they differ in where and how people would be able to place their bets, and how the tax money collected from these bets would be spent.
Proposition 26 would only allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and private horse racetracks.
Tribes would have to renegotiate their individual gambling compacts with the state to hammer out the details around placing the bets, including minimum age requirements, and how much of the revenue would go to the state and local governments.
The revenue the state collects from the bets would go into a newly created fund.
After required state spending on schools and administration for the program, the bulk of the remainder would go into the state’s general fund, and a portion would also go toward gambling addiction programs and gambling enforcement costs.
Support for Proposition 26 comes from more than a dozen tribes, which have put $119 million toward the Yes on 26, No on 27 campaign, according to state campaign finance disclosures.
That includes two local tribes: the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, the tribe that owns Cache Creek Casino Resort in Yolo County, which contributed $22.6 million in support of Proposition 26; and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the tribe that owns Red Hawk Casino near Placerville, which contributed $2 million.
Proposition 26 is being opposed by a coalition of card rooms, which argue that it would give tribes a monopoly over gambling in the state, including new provisions they say tribes will use to try to shut down card rooms.
In addition to legalizing sports betting, Proposition 26 would allow tribal casinos to offer roulette and dice games such as craps, which are currently illegal under state law.
It also would create a new gambling law enforcement mechanism.
It would allow private individuals or entities to sue over certain gambling law violations, similar to the state’s Private Attorneys General Act for labor code violations.
Tribes have long accused card rooms of operating illegally by offering certain banked card games , a practice card rooms maintain is permitted.
Proposition 27, on the other hand, is largely supported by online sports betting companies like FanDuel and DraftKings Inc. (Nasdaq: DKNG).
It would allow them to partner with tribes to take bets over the internet or mobile phones.
Tribes would still have to have a gaming compact with the state, but could then offer mobile sports betting under their own name, or partner with one of the major sports betting companies, who could then offer sports betting under its own brand.
This bill specifies that 10% of the profits from sports betting would go to the state, which would put it in a new fund, the bulk of which would go toward gambling addiction programs and be allocated to cities and counties to address homelessness.
The rest would go to the tribes that are not involved in sports betting.
Sports wagering companies have contributed $169 million to the Yes on 27 campaign.
Opposition to Proposition 27 is funded by tribes , in particular the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a San Bernardino County tribe that owns the Yaamava' Resort and Casino in Highland and the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas.
The San Manuel Band contributed more than $100 million of the $117 million coffer for the No on 27 campaign.
Stricter requirements for dialysis clinics Proposition 29 would add new requirements for kidney dialysis clinics, including requiring them to have a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on-site during treatment hours, regularly report infection cases to the state, and disclose clinic ownership information to patients.
It also requires clinics to get the OK from the state before closing or substantially reducing services, and prohibits clinics from refusing care to patients based on their insurance provider.
Dialysis clinics are a $3.5 billion industry in California, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.
There are about 650 licensed dialysis clinics in the state, and most of them are operated by private, for-profit companies , 75% of all dialysis clinics in the state are owned or operated by two companies, DaVita Inc. (NYSE: DVA) and Fresenius Medical Care.
Proposition 29 is largely supported by SEIU-UHW , a labor union representing health care workers that has attempted to pass a similar proposition twice before.
It argues that these dialysis companies sacrifice the quality of patient care to increase profit margins, and need additional oversight.
Major funding for the opposition to Proposition 29 comes from DaVita, Fresenius Medical Care and Plano, Texas-based dialysis company U.S.
Renal Care.
They argue that these new regulations will increase the costs for dialysis clinics, which could result in them cutting services or shutting down.
Another tax on the wealthy proposed There is another tax on wealthy Californians being proposed this year, but this time voters, not lawmakers , are weighing in.
Proposition 30 would add an additional 1.75% tax on annual income above $2 million, which would go to funding climate programs.
The tax would sunset in 2043, and would end before that if the state’s greenhouse gas emissions drops below a certain threshold for three years in a row.
The money, which is estimated to be between $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, would go into a separate, newly-created fund that would primarily be spent on zero-emission vehicle programs.
The bulk of the money would have to be spent on payments to subsidize the purchase of zero-emission vehicles for residents, businesses and governments.
Another big chunk of the money would be used to build new charging stations and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure.
The last 20% would go toward wildfire response and prevention programs.
Proponents say the measure will raise needed funding to cut greenhouse gas emissions and help the state meet its climate change goals.
Proposition 30 is largely being bankrolled by the ride-share company Lyft Inc.
A state regulation adopted last year will require ride-share companies to convert at least 90% of their fleet to electric vehicles by 2030.
Prop 30 opponents include the California Chamber of Commerce, which has long opposed a wealth tax and argues that this tax increase will drive wealthy people out of the state, and Gov.
Gavin Newsom , who called Prop 30 a “cynical scheme” by Lyft (Nasdaq: LYFT) to get the public to pay for its greenhouse gas mandates.
Other opponents include the California Republican Party and the California Small Business Association. © 2022 American City Business Journals.
All rights reserved.
Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated January 1, 2021) and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement (updated July 1, 2022).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of American City Business Journals. source million.
Proposition 26 is being opposed by a coalition of card rooms, which argue that it would give tribes a monopoly over gambling in the state, including new provisions they say tribes will use to try to shut down card rooms.
In addition to legalizing sports betting, Proposition 26 would allow tribal casinos to offer roulette and dice games such as craps, which are currently illegal under state law.
It also would create a new gambling law enforcement mechanism.
It would allow private individuals or entities to sue over certain gambling law violations, similar to the state’s Private Attorneys General Act for labor code violations.
Tribes have long accused card rooms of operating illegally by offering certain banked card games , a practice card rooms maintain is permitted.
Proposition 27, on the other hand, is largely supported by online sports betting companies like FanDuel and DraftKings Inc. (Nasdaq: DKNG).
It would allow them to partner with tribes to take bets over the internet or mobile phones.
Tribes would still have to have a gaming compact with the state, but could then offer mobile sports betting under their own name, or partner with one of the major sports betting companies, who could then offer sports betting under its own brand.
This bill specifies that 10% of the profits from sports betting would go to the state, which would put it in a new fund, the bulk of which would go toward gambling addiction programs and be allocated to cities and counties to address homelessness.
The rest would go to the tribes that are not involved in sports betting.
Sports wagering companies have contributed 9 million to the Yes on 27 campaign.
Opposition to Proposition 27 is funded by tribes , in particular the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a San Bernardino County tribe that owns the Yaamava' Resort and Casino in Highland and the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas.
The San Manuel Band contributed more than 0 million of the 7 million coffer for the No on 27 campaign.
Stricter requirements for dialysis clinics Proposition 29 would add new requirements for kidney dialysis clinics, including requiring them to have a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on-site during treatment hours, regularly report infection cases to the state, and disclose clinic ownership information to patients.
It also requires clinics to get the OK from the state before closing or substantially reducing services, and prohibits clinics from refusing care to patients based on their insurance provider.