Daily Titan | Election Guide | November 7, 2022

Orange County plays key role in midterms

a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Kamala Harris, and ultimately what legislation reaches the president.

“The biggest, hugest effect is winning that 218 seats, getting that majority,” Jarvis said. “That gives you speakership, that gives you the ability to control the agenda. Which is really of critical importance.”

Jarvis said there are about 50 competitive seats that will have an impact on Congress. Orange County currently represent five of those seats. Representative Katie Porter, D-Irvine, is in the running for reelection against Republican Scott Baugh in the 47th congressional district.

Since the 1990s, Orange County has reported an overall increase in Hispanic and Asian residents.

“It used to be really red, and conservative and highly Republican, and now because of demographic change, it’s not LA, but it’s definitely more in that direction than it used to be,” Robinson said.

Currently, voter registration in the county is recorded at 37.33% Democratic voters, 33.39% Republican voters, and 3.32% neutral voters. In addition to the increase in diversity in residents, the redrawing of districts makes the election even more intense.

Both Jarvis and Robinson said that if Rep. Porter wins in her district, other democratic representatives in suburban areas are likely to win their district as well.

Last month, President Joe Biden and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, visited Irvine to discuss public issues and encourage voter turnout, specifically among youths. Jarvis said most youths in California lean Democratic.

KEZIA SANTOSO DOMINIC SAMANIEGO BORLEN CHONG Asst. Editors

With the upcoming midterm elections, Orange County could have a significant impact in determining which party will control the House of Representatives.

While Orange County has traditionally been a conservative district, the 2018 election indicated a change in the county’s voter demographics.

Orange County is currently a purple county, meaning the

margins between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slim.

Matthew Jarvis, an associate professor of political science and chair of the Division of Politics Administration and Justice, said winning the house of representatives is pivotal for control over the upcoming 118th Congress.

With 212 Republicans and 220 Democratic Congress members - and only three vacancies - the Democratic Party makes up the majority of the House of Representatives and controls the Senate through

Rob Robinson, an associate professor of political science, said votes in the county are critical because there are many competitive seats.

“We’re in a competitive area in the country, where your votes really matter,” Robinson said. “In some realistic sense, we have more impact on the course of the House if it’s a close race in terms of how many seats each party is getting, so we’re kind of a critical area in the country.”

Robinson said Orange County’s demographics have been changing, not just in political affiliation but also with minority populations.

Robinson said Republicans are seeing decreased votes from caucasian and educated voters. He said the increase in minority populations contributed to the significant change, since minorities tend to be more liberal on the political spectrum.

“As the Republican party maybe took harsher rhetoric on immigration, maybe became a little more conservative on educational issues,” Robinson said. “I think you saw a drift from those groups in California towards Democrats.”

Robinson said that the election should not be looked at as a regional matter, but rather as a potential national wave.

“The Republican electorate skews white, and it skews older,” Jarvis said. “As time goes on, both those demographics are shrinking in Orange County,”

Robinson said the visits from both Biden and Ocasio-Cortez were meant to encourage turnout for young voters, who typically do participate in elections as much as older voters.

Since 2018, every congressional district in Orange County has elected a Democrat into the House of Representatives. However, in the 2020 election, Republicans flipped two of those seats.

What was once a hub of conservatism in California is now a battleground where both parties have an equal shot.

Harriet Edwards, a poll worker, at the CSUF voting center Sunday.

ROSEMARY MONTALVO / DAILY TITAN

Teacher ban at forefront of local board election

NOLLYANNE DELACRUZ Editor

Following the Placentia-Yorba Linda School District ban on critical race theory, the district’s Area 4 and Area 5 board of trustees’ seats are up for reelection. Cal State Fullerton recently suspended their student teaching partnership with the school district over the ban.

The Area 4 incumbent, Karin Freeman, is running for reelection against Todd Frazier, a certified public accountant and business owner, and Steve Slawson, a local business owner. Both Slawson and Frazier oppose critical race theory.

Freeman has an extensive history of educational leadership: She was a trustee of the North Orange County Regional Occupational Program, director of the Orange County School Boards Association and a delegate of the California School Boards Association.

Freeman’s campaign statement outlines her commitment to first-rate education through “highly-qualified staff, modern technology and dynamic curricula.” According to her campaign website, she said that she will protect and strengthen the quality of courses essential to a well-rounded education. She also said she supports academic pathways that can engage more students.

According to Ballotpedia, Frazier said he has lived in Yorba Linda for over 30 years and is an active member of

his church. He said he supports parental rights and wants to promote responsible spending.

Parental rights is the idea that parents should have a say in the curriculum that their children learn in school.

In an email interview, Slawson stated that he has been a business owner for more than 25 years, which has taught him to listen to every side and make fully informed decisions.

“I will tirelessly work to make sure that all parents and student concerns are heard and be a voice for them,” Slawson said.

Slawson said his top priorities are improving test scores, creating a path for students to transfer to universities through partnerships with those institutions and listening to parents and constituents.

In Area 5, incumbent Carrie Buck looks to defend her seat against Richard Ingle, a lawyer who specializes in business law, real estate and elder abuse.

Buck serves as the vice president of the Orange County School Board Association and was appointed to the Child Nutrition Advisory Council this year by the California State Superintendent.

Buck said she supports school choice in public education. She opposed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. She said she supports programs like AVID, STEM and the arts, which provide students with basic skills and the curiosity to develop new ones. Buck

has also advocated for Measure Y, an educational bond program that would help build, complete and modernize schools in the district.

Around 23,000 students were enrolled for the 20222023 school year in the school district.

Richard Ingle is an attorney based in Orange County. His platform focuses on opposing the implementation of critical race theory in classrooms, focusing tax funds on students, hiring and supporting quality teachers, ensuring students’ safety on campus and supporting parental rights.

Freeman, Frazier and Ingle did not respond to requests for comment. Buck declined to comment.

In the Fullerton area, there are also open seats in the Fullerton School District and the Fullerton Joint Union High School District. Area 4 of both the Fullerton School District and Fullerton Joint Union High School District contain Cal State Fullerton.

The current Area 4 trustee for the Fullerton School District is Janny Meyer, who is not running for reelection. Candidates vying for her position are Ruthi Hanchett, a parent and educator, Lisa

Wozab, a small-business owner, and Rudy Garcia, a school facilities supervisor.

Hanchett has over 20 years of experience as a children’s advocate and worked as an educational policy officer and child protection specialist for World Vision International. Since 2013, she has been an adjunct professor at Vanguard University’s Global Center for Women and Justice.

Hanchett said her goals as trustee include ensuring protection and safety online and on campus and expanding opportunities for students by focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion. She also aims to promote mental health and incorporate Fullerton School District employees’ voices in making decisions.

Woznab’s involvement in the Fullerton School District includes the California Healthy Youth Act Materials Task Force, the Diversity Equity and Inclusion subcommittee, and the Fullerton Collaborative Early Childhood subcommittee. She has also been involved as Fullerton’s infrastructure and natural resources commissioner and water dispute panel member.

Woznab said she aims to

prioritize student and campus safety, improve school curriculums, hire and retain qualified staff.

Garcia was not able to be contacted and did not have a campaign website.

In the Fullerton Joint Union High School District, Area 4 incumbent Lauren Klatzker is running against Matthew Van Hook, an associate professor at Torrey Honors College at Biola University.

Klatzker is the president of the school district’s board of trustees. She said she plans to continue modernizing classrooms. She plans to partner the school district with the community, keep for-profit charter schools out of the community, ensure student safety, and expand mental health resources.

Van Hook served in the U.S. Air Force and was an associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He has been teaching at Biola University since January 2021.

He said his priorities are providing a welcoming environment for students, improving class instruction, supporting ethnic studies courses, being open to the needs of the community and improving safety through partnerships with law enforcement.

There are four board of trustees seats up for election across three public school districts in Fullerton.

DAVID NUÑEZ / DAILY TITAN

What to know about California propositions

Midterm elections are the time for California voters to nominate the next governor, as well as vote for local representatives and propositions.

In preparation, Cal State Fullerton’s Alumni Association hosted the Go Vote: Voter Education series, consisting of the Ballot Breakdown on Oct. 19 which explained the different elected positions, and Ballot

Propositions 101 on Oct. 26 , which covered each proposition on the ballot.

“We don’t go into any politics,” said Jessica Rowland, program specialist for the Office of Alumni Engagement.

“We want to stress what a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote would mean to better understand the propositions.”

The California ballot only has seven propositions this election, the fewest in over a century, according to CalMatters.

Dr. Sarah Hill, a professor of political science at CSUF, explained the propositions during the Ballot

Propositions 101 session. She discussed how propositions get on a ballot, who funds and supports them and the meaning of each vote.

Here is a breakdown of the propositions, what they mean and who supports each one:

Proposition 1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom

This constitutional amendment would allow California to include the right to reproductive freedom, including personal decisions, the right to choose an abortion and to choose or refuse contraceptives. California law currently

supports these rights, but writing it into the California Constitution would make it harder to overturn.

Yes: This would change the California Constitution to specifically include a right to reproductive freedom.

No: This would not change the California Constitution and the existing law would remain in effect.

Proposition 26:

Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands.

Proposition 26 would legalize and tax in-person sports betting, roulette and dice games in tribal casinos and at horse racetracks, which is currently illegal. The tax revenue this proposition would garner is potentially tens of millions of dollars for the state annually. Taxes would fund gambling addiction programs.

Yes: It would legalize this type of gambling on tribal lands and horse racetracks.

No: This type of gambling would remain illegal.

JENNIFER LUND Sta Writer

There are currently seven propositions on the midterm ballot in California that covers abortion, gambling and avored tobacco products.

JENNIFER LUND / DAILY TITAN

Proposition 27: Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands.

Sports betting is currently not allowed in California. Proposition 27 would allow tribes and a ffi liated businesses with California tribes to operate online sports betting outside tribal lands. If passed, winnings would be taxed and funds would be established for homelessness and mental health programs. Revenue to California is potentially hundreds of millions annually.

If passed, only a licensed tribe can operate online betting, or a company that partners with a tribe can provide online betting.

“Those companies are large out-of-state companies,” Hill said. “They’re trying to break into the California market and trying to use the tribes to do that.”

Yes: It allows tribes and a ffi liated businesses to operate online sports betting outside of tribal lands. No: Sports betting would remain illegal in California.

Proposition 28: Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools.

Currently, the state is required to set aside a specific percentage of the annual budget for K-12 education from Proposition 98. Proposition 28 will require additional funding specifically for arts and music.

Hill said this initiative is strictly for arts

and music education with additional funding going to schools serving low income students. This initiative does not create any new tax revenue, and funding will have to come strictly from the budget.

When the state specifies how money has to be spent, it prevents the legislature from making budget decisions, especially in a bad budget year, Hill said. So if there is a recession, the legislature would not be able to divert the money to other areas, Hill said.

Yes: The state will set aside additional funding.

No: There would be no change in funding.

Proposition 29: Dialysis Clinic Sta ffi ng Regulations

This would require a licensed medical professional such as a doctor, nurse practitioner or physician assistant to be on-site during all treatment hours. Two similar measures were rejected by voters in 2018 and 2020. Currently, a patient must be seen by their doctor at least once a month, but the doctor does not have to be present during their treatment. No other state has this type of regulation in place.

Yes: Dialysis clinics would be required to have a licensed medical professional on-site.

No: There will be no such requirement.

Proposition 30: Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income over $2 million.

Residents with a personal income over $2 million will be taxed to increase state funding for electric vehicles

and prevent wildfires. This initiative is supported by Lyft, environmentalists and some labor groups.

Hill said this initiative is supported by Lyft and Uber because they have to make the switch to electric vehicles faster, and this would help pay for that switch.

Yes: People who make over $2 million annually would have higher taxes and funding would promote electric vehicles and prevent wildfires.

No: There would be no change in taxes or funding of electric vehicles and wildfire prevention.

Proposition 31: Upholds the Ban on Flavored Tobacco Products

Gov. Gavin Newsom previously signed a law banning flavored tobacco products in 2020 to discourage use by teens. Tobacco companies funded a referendum to overturn that law. Proposition 31 would reinforce the previous banning of flavored tobacco products.

Yes: This would reinforce that law: a ban on in-person and vending machine sales of flavored tobacco products.

No: This would overturn the law allowing in-person and vending machine sales of flavored tobacco products.

Hill suggests doing additional research to find out who supports and financially funds each proposition and to be fully informed on who wants what proposition passed and why. In addition to the Official Voter Information Guide received by mail, she recommended using the sites VotersEdge.org, CalMatter. org and LAO.ca.gov.

Opinion:

Gambling propositions limits indigenous rights

Proposition 26, not 27, supports Native American sovereignty.

MAHEALANI WU Asst. Editor

Gambling may be expanded in California through Propositions 26 and 27, but, due to their impact on Native American communities, it’s best to vote “yes” on Proposition 26 and vote “no” on Proposition 27.

Proposition 26, which is supported by over 30 tribes, will legalize in-person sports wagering on tribal lands and California’s four horse tracks. Proposition 27 will legalize online sports betting outside of tribal casinos, and is backed by many big-name gambling companies such as DraftKings and FanDuel.

Currently, sports betting is illegal in California, but Proposition 26 would legalize it for tribal casinos and horse race tracks, including a 10% tax on net betting. Regulating Proposition 26 will require casinos and horse racing tracks to pay 15% toward gambling addiction programs, 70% to the general fund for state operations and 15% to the Department of Justice. It is estimated that Proposition 26 will generate tens of millions of dollars in taxes annually if passed, which would benefit gaming tribes.

In turn, this can help to consolidate power within gaming tribes, which provide services like education, health programs and unemployment benefits for the

community.

Sarah Hill, a professor of political science at Cal State Fullerton, created a series of YouTube videos to educate students and faculty on this year’s ballot propositions.

“One of the things to hold in mind is that the tribal nations are supposed to be sovereign. So they really shouldn’t have to negotiate for gaming, they should be able to do what they want,” Hill said. However, the United States government does not treat them as sovereign, Hill said.

Proposition 26 will strengthen tribal sovereignty and increase Native American self-reliance by allowing them to control gambling on their lands, and is a responsible start to sports wagering in California.

On the other hand, Proposition 27 allows out-of-state gambling corporations to insert themselves into California’s market, which will essentially take money away from the state. And to do so, they will take advantage of and work with non-gaming tribes that do not have the opportunity to participate in casino gaming.

Over $440 million has been spent campaigning for Proposition 27, with a majority opposing it. Over a quarter of the campaign money has been donated by the San Manuel Band of Indians, and over 50 tribes are against it.

President of the Pechanga Development Corporation, Andrew Masiel, said Proposition 27 will greatly impact Indian gaming opportunities. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians has donated over $30,000, and stands firmly against

Proposition 27, but backs Proposition 26.

“This misconception of this measure of aiding the need for stamping out homelessness and the homeless environment, it’s kind of false, because very little money is being a fforded to that,” Masiel said.

Although online sports betting is illegal in California, several loopholes enable residents to participate in offshore gambling sites, so more demands for regulation and more public health policy are necessary.

Proposition 27 will profit off of Californians and the temptation of online gambling will potentially take away tra ffic from tribal casinos. The fiscal impact will worsen homelessness and create more avenues of gambling addiction.

A significant concern

about both propositions is that they allocate part of the funds to homeless and gambling addiction programs to offset the harm of its gambling presence. However, Sean Hogan, an associate professor in the department of social work, said that it may not actually help.

“You can create treatment centers, but unless you can mandate offenders to go to treatment, if their motivation is low, the outcomes are generally poor,” Hogan said.

When considering both of these propositions, it is important to note that the politics of both Proposition 26 and 27 may pit gaming tribes against non-gaming tribes. The advisor for the Inter-Tribal Student Council and CSUF alum, Chase Sheriff, said that for him it is a hard decision.

In an email to the Daily

Titan, Sheriff wrote, “My only issue is that the generated money really isn’t going to help native assistance for the communities that need it. The intention is more centered around consolidating power to a few tribes and hoping they can battle it out with other gambling entities in the country.”

California needs to prioritize tribal autonomy and sovereignty, and create a proposition that is inclusive of all tribes: gaming and non-gaming. California must create more compacts with Native American tribes that empower tribal sovereignty for non-gaming tribes.

Both propositions cannot pass, so the best bet for California’s Native American tribes is to vote “yes” for Proposition 26 and vote “no” for Proposition 27.

SYDNEY CARROLL / DAILY TITAN

Opinion:

California’s promise to reproductive rights is due

ROSEMARY MONTALVO Editor

California residents are voting to amend the state constitution to protect female reproductive rights in this upcoming midterm election.

Proposition 1 is on the ballot for the midterm elections in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which found that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion.

It is crucial to vote “yes” on Proposition 1 because it would ensure the protection of an individual’s fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and use contraceptives at their own discretion at the state level.

California should continue its momentum in protecting abortion rights. Earlier this year, a bill was introduced to make California a sanctuary state for people seeking abortions.

Admittedly, not much would change if Proposition 1 is passed. Because the state already protects the right to have an abortion and the use of contraceptives, the proposition would change the California Constitution to include these existing rights to reproductive freedom.

Amending the California Constitution to include Proposition 1 would mean that future governors cannot decide to ban abortions the way several states across the country did as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned in June of this year.

Although California is currently a blue state, this does not mean that it will stay that way forever. California was historically a Republican state until the 1990s, when the state elected Bill Clinton for president. Future legislatures that oppose abortion could decide to ban abortions, taking away the fundamental right to choose from

millions of people.

Trusting the words from individuals in power at the national level to uphold abortion rights is long gone, especially after three U.S. Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, swore under oath that they would not overturn Roe v. Wade because it was a settled precedent, but did just that in June.

Former President Barack Obama could have codified Roe v. Wade at any given point between 2009 and 2011 when Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate

and the House of Representatives. Obama did not codify it, even though he promised throughout his campaign that it would be his first task if he was elected.

President Joe Biden recently said he will codify Roe v. Wade as long as voters elect more Democratic senators. Democrats have used abortion rights as one of their main points to run their campiagns on for far too long and have not delivered, so it is absolutely crucial that California voters take advantage of this opportunity to protect reproductive rights.

More importantly, many arguments against Proposition 1 hinge on misunderstandings of how abortion procedures work.

Opponents argue that the measure’s wording is too vague and worry that it would allow individuals to have abortions at any given point and for any reason throughout the pregnancy.

Rob R. Robinson, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Fullerton said that although Proposition 1 doesn’t explicitly state the restrictions on when an individual can have an abortion, the intent behind the measure is no different than the law that is already in place in California.

“Supporters themselves have said that they really want to simply maintain the status quo, but protect it constitutionally rather than statutorily,” Robinson said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 91% of all abortions occur at or before 13 weeks gestation and only 1.2% of abortions happen at or after 21 weeks gestation. Late-term abortions are not common and, in most cases, are necessary due to medical reasons that could result in the death of the pregnant person or the fetus or due to fetal anomalies that are detected at 20 weeks, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation website. That would not change if Proposition 1 is passed.

California has consistently been a leader in upholding the reproductive rights of women. Voting on Proposition 1 would be the crowning achievement for California’s commitment to women’s rights and gender equality.

Protesters gather at Cal State Fullerton after the leaked Supreme court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

ROSEMARY MONTALVO / DAILY TITAN