Elections remind us not only of the rights but the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy. ~ Robert Kennedy

By Mary O’Keefe

It may have seemed like it would never arrive but Election Day is only 12 days away; however, early voting in Los Angeles County has already begun. The LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office on Oct. 6 began mailing Vote-by-Mail ballots for the 2022 General Election to all registered voters.

There are multiple easy return options available for voters’ Vote-by-Mail ballots. Ballots can be returned by USPS mail (no postage required), voters can use any of the 4,000 ballot drop boxes located across LA County or ballots can be dropped off at any Vote Center beginning Oct. 29. Voting can be done in-person as well at local voting centers.

To find Ballot Drop Boxes visit https://tinyurl.com/mwhjy6zy or to find a Vote Center visit https://tinyurl.com/5ydvzf9c or call the County Registrar at (800) 815-2666, Ext. 2.

This year some voters may find some surprises on their ballot due to redistricting. For some voters, the names of incumbent representatives running for office will be familiar; for others, there will be some new names on their ballot.

The U.S. Constitution requires a federal census every 10 years. California and many other states use this data to redraw the congressional, state senate, state assembly and State Board of Equalization districts based on population changes. The new district lines are drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Starting with Congressional districts, for the last 10 years those in Glendale, Montrose [the far north Glendale section], Burbank and La Crescenta/Montrose [unincorporated area of LA County] had been part of the 28^th District before redistricting. Now, after redistricting lines have been drawn, the unincorporated area of LA County La Crescenta/Montrose, La Cañada Flintridge and Sunland-Tujunga are part of the 28^th Congressional District while Burbank/Glendale/Montrose are part of 30^th Congressional District.

Incumbent Adam Schiff and candidate Maebe “A” Girl are in Congressional District 30.

Incumbent Judy Chu and candidate Wes Hallman are in Congressional District 28.

Assemblymember Laura Friedman represents District 44, which covers a large area including Sunland-Tujunga, Burbank and Crescenta Valley/Glendale. Friedman and candidate Barry Curtis Jackson are running in the race for the 44^th Assembly District seat.

The easiest way for voters to find what district they are in is to go to lavote.gov, click on Registrar of Voters, click on My Election Information, then click on Access Your Interactive Sample Ballot and click Get Started. Those who would rather telephone the Registrar of Voters can call (800) 815-2666.

Many of the candidates were covered in the CVW during the primaries including those running for judges’ seats. Those articles can be found by searching www.cvweekly.com.

Some voters in the Crescenta Valley area will be asked to vote for members of the Crescenta Valley Water District board of directors. Voters can vote for no more than three of the four candidates. The candidates include incumbents James Bodnar, Kerry Erickson and Jeffery W. Johnson and candidate Alec Hyeler.

These state measures are on the ballot: 1, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31.

Below are descriptions of the state measures, or propositions, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office:

State Measure 1 would change the California Constitution to say that the state cannot deny or interfere with a person’s reproductive freedom and that people have the fundamental right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and whether or not to use contraceptives. A “yes” vote would mean that the California Constitution would be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom. A “no” vote would mean the California Constitution would not be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom.

As of now state law does place some restrictions on abortions: Because of the way California courts have interpreted the right to privacy, the state can only restrict abortions when needed to meet certain state interests such as public health and safety. For example, California law requires abortion providers to be licensed. In addition, abortions can only be performed on a viable fetus if the pregnancy puts the health or life of the person who is pregnant at risk. Under state law, a fetus is considered viable if the fetus likely would be able to survive outside the uterus.

State Measure 26 — If passed this allows in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos. It requires that racetracks and casinos that offer sports betting make certain payments to the state – such as to support state regulatory costs. The proposition also allows additional gambling, such as roulette, at tribal casinos. Finally it adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws. This measure would change the California Constitution and state law to allow the state’s privately operated racetracks and tribal casinos to offer sports betting. However the measure bans bets on certain sports, such as high school games and games in which California college team participates.

A “yes” vote mean four racetracks could offer in-person sports betting. Tribal casinos could offer in-person sports betting, roulette and games played with dice [such as craps] if permitted by individual tribal gambling agreements with the state.

A “no” vote mean sports betting would continue to be illegal in California. Tribal casinos wold continue to be unable to offer roulette and games played with dice.

State Measure 27 — If passed this measure allows tribes or gambling companies to offer online sports betting. It requires tribes and gambling companies that offer online sports betting to make certain payments to the state for specific purposes, such as to support state regulatory costs and to address homelessness. The proposition also creates a new online sports betting regulatory unit and provides new ways to reduce illegal online sports betting.

Sports Betting – State law currently bans sports betting in California. However, state law allows some gambling, such as tribal gambling, the state lottery, card-rooms, and horse racing betting.

Tribal Gambling– Native American tribes have certain rights under federal law to govern themselves, such as certain rights to offer gambling.

A “yes” vote means licensed tribes and gambling companies could offer online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices to people 21 years of age and older on non-tribal lands in California.

A “no” vote would mean sports betting would continue to be illegal in California. No changes would be made to the way state gaming laws are enforced.

State Measure 28 proposes to require the state to provide additional funding to increase arts instruction and/or art programs in public schools. The amount required each year would equal 1% of the constitutionally required state and local funding that public schools received the year before.

A “yes” vote would mean the state would provide additional funding specifically for arts education in public schools.

A “no” vote on this measure would mean funding for arts education in public schools would continue to depend on state and local budget decisions.

State Measure 29 includes several requirements affecting dialysis clinics. It gives the California Dept. of Public Health (CDPH) the right to implement and administer the proposition, including adopting regulations within one year after the law takes effect. There are several requirements including professionals being on property during operation hours. This is estimated to increase costs for dialysis clinics, which could cause them to charge more or to close, and increase costs for CDPH covered by the clinic.

A “yes” vote means chronic dialysis clinics would be required to have a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on-site during all patient treatment hours.

A “no” vote means the clinics would not be required to have the above specialist present at all hours.

Proposition 30 provides funding for programs to reduce air pollution and prevent wildfires by increasing tax on personal income over $2 million.

Beginning January 2023, Proposition 30 (if passed) would require taxpayers with incomes above $2 million each year (annually) to pay an additional tax of 1.75%  on the share of their income above $2 million. This additional tax would end by January 2043. The tax could end several years earlier if California is able to drop its statewide greenhouse gas emissions below certain levels before then.

The tax income to the state would help fund climate programs including subsidizing purchasing zero-emissions vehicles by using about 80% of the funds to help people buy zero emission vehicles and to build charging stations. The minimum percentage left wold help hire and train firefighters.

This state measure/proposition has become interesting because of those who support and oppose it. Lyft has put a lot of money into the fight for the Yes on 30, while other high profile people including Governor Gavin Newsom have come out against the proposition.

“State of California have ruled that 90% of rideshare vehicles must be electric vehicles by 2030. Lyft is trying to force the taxpayers to foot the bill — rather than spend their own corporate money to support their drivers and comply with the new law,” according to No on Prop 30.

According to Yes on Prop 30, “[The proposition] is a climate action ballot initiative that will help millions of California afford electric vehicles, create a statewide EV charging network and reduce catastrophic wildfires by funding forest management, more firefighters and firefighting equipment.”

A “yes” on Prop 30 would mean taxpayers would pay an additional 1.75% on personal income above $2 million annually.

A “no” on Prop. 30 would mean no change would be made on personal income tax above $2 million.

State Measure 31 is a referendum on 2020 law that would prohibit the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products.

A “yes” vote means in-person stores and vending machines could not sell most flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers.

A “no” vote means in-person stores and vending machines could continue to sell flavored tobacco products and tobaccos product flavor enhancers, as allowed under other federal, state and local rules.