California Proposition 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2022)

California Proposition 1
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Abortion
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 1, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to prohibit the state from interfering with or denying an individual's reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to an abortion and a right to contraceptives.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution.

Additional information on abortion-related ballot measures

• You can find a list of 2022's certified and proposed measures here: 2022 abortion-related ballot measures.

• Information on abortion-related ballot measures since 1970 is available here: History of abortion ballot measures.

Election results

California Proposition 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		7,176,883	66.88%
No		3,553,561	33.12%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Proposition 1 do?

See also: Text of measure

Proposition 1 amended the California Constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, which was defined to include a right to an abortion and to choose or refuse contraceptives. The amendment stated, "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives."

What was the legal status of abortion in California?

See also: Status of abortion rights in California and Abortion regulations in California

As of 2022, abortion was legal in California up to fetal viability and after viability if the procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. In 2002, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which added language to state statute declaring that women have a "fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose and to obtain an abortion."

Have other states decided on abortion rights amendments?

See also: 2022 abortion-related ballot measures and History of abortion on the ballot

At the time of the election, no state had voted on a constitutional amendment to provide a right to reproductive freedom. In 2022, Vermont voters decided on similar amendments in Michigan and Vermont to add language protecting the right to personal reproductive autonomy. Voters in Kansas defeated an amendment that would have stated that nothing in the state constitution establishes a right to abortion. Kentucky decided on a similar amendment at the general election.

At the time of the election, at least nine states, provided a state constitutional right to abortion based on court rulings, including four states that have also guaranteed abortion rights through statute. None of these states provide an explicit constitutional right to abortion; rather, state courts have ruled that provisions related to privacy, liberty, and equality provide a right to abortion.

Who supported and opposed Proposition 1?

See also: Support and Opposition

Yes on 1 led the campaign in support of Proposition 1. The committees registered in support of Proposition 1 reported $16.7 million. The campaign received endorsements from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Democratic U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and California Medical Association. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said, "California will not sit on the sidelines as unprecedented attacks on the fundamental right to choose endanger women across the country. This measure will ensure that women in our state have an inviolable right to a safe and legal abortion that is protected in our constitution."

California Together, No on Proposition 1 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 1. The committees behind the campaign have reported over $332,707.85 in contributions. The campaign received endorsements from former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R), Republican Party of California, California Conference of Catholic Bishops, Democrats for Life of America, and the Knights of Columbus. Roman Catholic Bishop Jaime Soto said, "The state's political leadership continues to stubbornly cling to the practice of abortion and the throw-away culture. It is reprehensible to enshrine in the State Constitution the practice of abortion even until moments before delivery. The language of SCA 10 is overly vague, reckless and could further endanger children, especially among the poor and marginalized in our state."

Reactions

The following is a list of reactions from supporters and opponents regarding the approval of the constitutional amendment:

• Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California released a statement that said, "Tonight, Californians made history – becoming the first state to explicitly enshrine abortion and contraception in our state constitution! Here in California, voters used their voice to say loud and clear they support access to abortion and contraception - safeguarding peoples’ rights for generations to come. This overwhelming victory once again shows California’s leadership in moments of national crisis and that our values will not be compromised by a handful of conservative extremists on the U.S. Supreme Court pushing a political agenda while ignoring facts, medicine, and science."
• Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone, who opposed the amendment, said, "While the passing of Prop. 1 is devastating for women, children, and families in California, there are some positive developments. By shining a bright light on the value of motherhood and the inherent dignity of the unborn child, our hard work helped to shift minds and hearts to the pro-life movement."
• Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), who sponsored the amendment, said, "Tonight we celebrate reproductive freedom, and that loud clear message that abortion is and forever will be protected in California. History has shown us that human rights must be enshrined in our constitution so that no extremist wielding power can infringe upon them."
• The California Catholic Conference, the official organization of Roman Catholic bishops in California, said, "Though the measure succeeded, the number of Californians who identify as pro-life has increased by almost ten percent since this campaign began. In contrast, the number of Californians identifying as pro-choice has dropped seven percentage points, from 62% to 55%. We’ve shown that we can unite and be winsome in advocating against the extreme, expensive, and unnecessary push for late-term abortion. Thank you to our Bishops, who were vocal in their opposition to Prop. 1 and shepherded us through the contentious waters of abortion in California with a heart for Christ, proclaiming the dignity of every human life."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This amendment does not narrow or limit the existing rights to privacy and equal protection under the California Constitution.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, California Constitution

The measure added Section 1.1 to Article I of the California Constitution. The following underlined text was added:

SEC. 1.1. The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 23, and the FRE is -62. The word count for the ballot title is 8.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 19, and the FRE is 8. The word count for the ballot summary is 52.

Support

Yes on 1 led the campaign in support of Proposition 1.

Supporters

The campaign published a full list of its endorsements here.

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)
• U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D)
• U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D)
• U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D)
• U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier (D)
• U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D)
• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• State Sen. Toni Atkins (D)
• State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D)
• State Asm. Sabrina Cervantes (D)
• State Asm. Cristina Garcia (D)
• State Asm. Anthony Rendon (D)
• State Asm. Phil Ting (D)
• Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
• Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D)
• Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of California
• Peace and Freedom Party of California

Unions

• California Nurses Association
• California Teachers Association
• SEIU California State Council

Organizations

• ACLU of California
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• California Medical Association
• Human Rights Campaign PAC
• League of Women Voters of California
• NARAL Pro-Choice California
• Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Arguments

• Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-63): "We know from history that abortion bans don’t end abortion. They only outlaw safe abortions. We must preserve the fundamental reproductive rights of women here in California because they are under attack elsewhere."
• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): "California will not sit on the sidelines as unprecedented attacks on the fundamental right to choose endanger women across the country. This measure will ensure that women in our state have an inviolable right to a safe and legal abortion that is protected in our constitution."
• Cary Franklin, director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at UCLA Law School: "Prop. 1 does not bar the Legislature from regulating contraception and abortion. It does not allow abortion up to the moment of birth."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 1 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: VOTE YES ON PROP. 1. It's simple: Proposition 1 will enshrine the fundamental right to an abortion and a fundamental right to contraceptives in the California State Constitution. For nearly 50 years, Americans have relied on the legal principle set by Roe v. Wade that allowed individuals to make their own reproductive health decisions privately. Access to abortion is no longer federally protected and is under attack across the country. YES ON PROP. 1 PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. Prop. 1 amends the California State Constitution to explicitly prohibit interference with individual choices on reproductive health. It ensures a fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and protects access to contraceptives. These rights are consistent with existing state constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection under the law. YES ON PROP. 1 WILL ENSURE THE CHOICE TO SEEK COMPREHENSIVE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, INCLUDING ABORTION, WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTED IN CALIFORNIA. Millions in other states have already lost their right to an abortion. In those states, patients could be sent to prison for seeking abortions even in the case of miscarriages. And most will be prevented from having abortions even in cases of rape or incest. Their health care providers could also be held criminally liable. DOCTORS, NURSES AND HEALTH PROVIDERS ALL AGREE. Yes on Prop. 1 is necessary to keep reproductive medical decisions where they belong—with individuals and their health care providers, based on scientific facts, not political agendas. Prop. 1 will also protect how a person decides to use contraceptives and establishes guardrails that allow a person to make the choice themselves on how to use or to refuse contraceptives, based on their individual needs. WE CANNOT—AND MUST NOT—GO BACKWARDS. Before 1973, women needing essential reproductive health care were often forced to travel long distances or made to seek illegal care, even in the most extreme cases. Children growing up today should not have fewer rights than their grandparents. But unless we pass Prop. 1, our rights in California could be at risk. Access to affordable, comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, allows people to plan their lives and achieve their dreams. Yes on Prop. 1 protects access to the care that will give individuals and families the freedom to make those choices. The California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the League of Women Voters of California support Prop. 1 because no matter who or what political party controls the government, a person’s right to an abortion or contraceptives should be protected in California. We must lead the way to ensure that those who need access to care can get it in California. Learn more at YESon1CA.com. VOTE YES ON PROP. 1. --- Shannon Udovic-Constant, M.D., Board Chair, California Medical Association; Jodi Hicks, President, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California; and Carol Moon Goldberg, President, League of Women Voters of California

Opposition

California Together, No on Proposition 1 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 1.

Opponents

The campaign published a full list of its endorsements here.

Officials

• State Sen. Brian Dahle (R)
• State Rep. Megan Dahle (R)
• State Asm. James Gallagher (R)
• State Rep. Jim Patterson (R)

Former Officials

• U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Organizations

• California Alliance Pregnancy Care
• California Conference of Catholic Bishops
• Democrats for Life of America
• International Faith Based Coalition
• Knights of Columbus
• Pacific Justice Institute
• Students for Life

Arguments

• Jon Fleischman, the publisher of the FlashReport on California politics: "Californians are passionate about the state of human rights around the world, rightly outraged at abuses in some countries that make our stomachs turn. With Proposition 1 we would become more radical than countries we abhor. What kind of a state would guarantee the right for a healthy, pregnant mother to get an abortion the very day her child is due? We can and should be better than that and reject abortion extremism."
• Asm. Randy Voepel (R-71): "If you believe in souls and that we’re God’s creatures, when does the baby get the soul? You might want to think about that."
• Roman Catholic Bishop Jaime Soto: "The state's political leadership continues to stubbornly cling to the practice of abortion and the throw-away culture. It is reprehensible to enshrine in the State Constitution the practice of abortion even until moments before delivery. The language of SCA 10 is overly vague, reckless and could further endanger children, especially among the poor and marginalized in our state."
• Joe Alegria, director of development of Pregnancy Care Clinic: "Shouldn’t our leaders be asking: How do we render abortion unnecessary? How do we support desperate men and women, like myself, so they can make informed decisions about their baby? ... I hope the voters in our state see through the politics, and don’t just accept the status quo. Voters should encourage our leaders to find real solutions to abortion — not just words on paper, and work, like I have, to prevent abortion."
• Susan Shelley, editorial columnist for The Orange County Register: "It would be unprecedented, but up until now, unrestricted late-term abortion has not been legal. If California legalizes it, the unintended consequences could be far-reaching. Wherever you stand on the issue of abortion, 'No on Proposition 1' is the right vote."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 1 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: Those of us signing this argument have differing views on many issues, including abortion. But we all agree Proposition 1 is an extreme, expensive, and pointless waste of tax money that will allow unrestricted late-term abortions costing taxpayers millions. This is not the answer. Proposition 1 was put on the ballot for one reason—to score political points, not to make serious policy. Women already have the right to choose under current California law. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not and will not change this. Proposition 1 is NOT needed to protect women’s health or their reproductive rights. Abortions are already legal in California with reasonable limits on late-term abortions, which are allowed if medically necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Proposition 1 will destroy this important balance and bake the most extreme abortion law possible into our state constitution. Proposition 1 will allow late-term abortions at taxpayer expense WITHOUT limitation for any reason at any time up to the moment of birth—even when the mother's life is not in danger, even when the healthy baby could survive outside the womb. Instead of preserving our state's compassionate and carefully balanced limits on late-term abortions, Proposition 1 will push California far outside the mainstream. Today, most states and 47 European countries limit late-term abortions, including California. A recent Harris Poll found that 90% of Americans support limits on late-term abortions. Likewise, recent polling shows that most California voters support limitations on late-term abortions, as well. By allowing abortion without limit, Proposition 1 will turn California into a “sanctuary state” for thousands, possibly millions, of abortion seekers from other states, at a staggering cost to taxpayers. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute estimates that California could see a nearly 3,000% increase in the number of people from other states seeking abortions here, with many coming for more expensive late-term abortions. According to the report, California’s annual out-of-state patient load could climb from 46,000 people a year to 1.4 million. Without limits on late-term abortions, Proposition 1 will push these numbers even higher, draining millions of tax dollars at a time when taxpayers are struggling with inflation and sky-high gas prices. The Legislature has already committed over $200 million this year to expand abortion and reproductive services, including tens of millions to pay the expenses for abortion seekers from other states. With a 3,000% increase in the number of people from other states wanting abortions, millions of dollars more will be required to meet soaring demand. Proposition 1 is an extreme and costly proposal that does nothing to advance women's health or their right to choose. It punishes taxpayers and eliminates all limits on late-term abortions in defiance of what most voters want. Proposition 1 is a cynical political stunt that was put on the ballot to score political points, not make sensible policy. As usual, taxpayers will pay the price. We urge a "NO" vote on Proposition 1. It deserves defeat. --- Dr. Anne Marie Adams, Gynecologist; Tak Allen, President, International Faith Based Coalition; and Assemblymember Jim Patterson

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through January 31, 2023.

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered in support of Proposition 1: Atkins Ballot Measure Committee; Yes on Proposition 1 and Gabriel in Support of Proposition 1; Californians for Justice. The committees reported a total of $16.7 million in contributions. Two committees, Women for Reproductive Facts - No on Prop 1 and Stop Prop 1 - A Committee in Opposition to Proposition 1, are registered in opposition to Proposition 1. Together they reported $332,707.85 in contributions.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$12,802,595.83	$3,856,437.24	$16,659,033.07	$12,919,426.64	$16,775,863.88
Oppose	$332,707.85	$0.00	$332,707.85	$303,253.56	$303,253.56

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Proposition 1.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

Committees in support of Proposition 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Atkins Ballot Measure Committee; Yes on Proposition 1	$12,753,075.83	$3,856,437.24	$16,609,513.07	$12,869,946.12	$16,726,383.36
Gabriel in Support of Proposition 1; Californians for Justice	$49,520.00	$0.00	$49,520.00	$49,480.52	$49,480.52
Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles County - Yes on Prop 1	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$12,802,595.83	$3,856,437.24	$16,659,033.07	$12,919,426.64	$16,775,863.88

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of Proposition 1.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria	$5,000,000.00	$0.00	$5,000,000.00
Newsom for California Governor 2022	$0.00	$2,135,505.44	$2,135,505.44
California Democratic Party	$0.00	$1,191,027.37	$1,191,027.37
California Medical Association - Physicians' Issues Committee	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles County	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to Proposition 1.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

Committees in support of Proposition 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Stop Prop 1 - A Committee in Opposition to Proposition 1	$332,707.85	$0.00	$332,707.85	$303,253.56	$303,253.56
Women for Reproductive Facts - No on Prop 1	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$332,707.85	$0.00	$332,707.85	$303,253.56	$303,253.56

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to Proposition 1.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
East Valley Republican Women and Patriot Store	$65,200.00	$0.00	$65,200.00
Lisa Collinsworth	$16,022.51	$0.00	$16,022.51
Michael Weststeyn	$5,236.13	$0.00	$5,236.13
Deborah Koland	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00
Kay Holmes	$3,000.00	$0.00	$3,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative.

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at [email protected].

Support

• Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Prop 1 is needed to ensure that such bodily autonomy decisions remain under the purview of pregnant people, their families, and their doctors, and not conservative politicians and judges. Vote YES on Prop 1."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Frankly, every state needs to have the right to abortion stated in its constitution. That includes California, though it is already one of the most progressive states in the nation on reproductive rights and lawmakers have passed new laws confirming the state’s status as a haven for abortion. ... Vote yes on Proposition 1."
• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "By explicitly adding protections for abortion and contraception to our state Constitution, the right to abortion will still be secure even if a future Legislature were to repeal the Reproductive Privacy Act or a future California Supreme Court decides the privacy provision no longer applies to reproductive rights."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "This is a necessary response to the court’s June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Proposition 1 — as with so many California ballot measures — would see the Golden State set an example for the rest of the nation. But it’s not just symbolic. Just because the California Supreme Court says the right to privacy enshrined in the state Constitution covers abortion doesn’t mean future courts will agree. Making such an arbitrary reversal impossible should reassure Californians that their reproductive freedoms will be protected."
• The Mercury News Editorial Board: "Californians can no longer count on federal protections. They need to explicitly embed rights to choose an abortion and to choose or refuse contraception in their state constitution. Proposition 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot would do just that. Vote yes."
• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "With this proposition, California can ensure that pregnant people — and the rights of pregnant people traveling here — are protected from the kind of political and judicial games that have threatened those rights on a national level."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in opposition to Proposition 1.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2022 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at [email protected].

California Proposition 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2022)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Public Policy Institute of California	9/2/22-9/11/22	1,060 LV	± 5.4%	69%	25%	6%
	Question: "Proposition 1 is called the Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. It amends the California Constitution to include the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This amendment does not narrow or limit the existing rights to privacy and equal protection under California’s Constitution. There is no direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights are already protected by state law. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1?"

Rasmussen Reports	8/10/22-8/11/22	1,006 LV	± 3.0%	66%	27%	7%
	Question: "Do you support or oppose California’s Proposition 1 which states: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”"

U.S. Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies	8/9/22-8/15/22	9,254 RV	± 2.0%	71%	18%	11%
	Question: "In the November election, California voters will be asked to vote on Proposition One, a statewide constitutional amendment having to do with abortion rights. It reads as follows: “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.” If you were voting today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition One?"

Public Policy Institute of California	7/8/22 - 7/15/22	1,132 LV	± 4.1%	73%	27%	1%
	Question: "Recently, the California legislature placed a constitutional amendment for voter approval on the November ballot that would prohibit the state from denying or interfering with an individual's reproductive freedom, including their right to choose to have an abortion and their right to choose or refuse contraceptives. Do you favor or oppose this constitutional amendment on abortion rights?"
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Abortion regulations in California

As of 2022, abortion was legal up to the point of viability and legal after viability only if the patient's life or health is endangered. Viability is the point in gestation when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

On June 24, 2022, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States found there is no constitutional right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Mississippi's abortion law at issue in the case. Roe v. Wade found that state laws criminalizing abortion prior to fetal viability violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but rejected the trimester framework established in the case. The high court affirmed that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability.

In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The newly-enacted law prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

Status of abortion rights in California

People v. Belous (1969)

In People v. Belous (1969), the California Supreme Court ruled that women have "[constitutional] rights to life and to choose whether to bear children." The court's ruling stated that "the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children follows from the Supreme Court's and this court's repeated acknowledgment of a 'right of privacy' or 'liberty' in matters related to marriage, family, and sex."

California Proposition 11 (1972)

See also: California Proposition 11, Constitutional Right to Privacy Amendment (1972)

In 1972, California voters approved Proposition 11 by a margin of 62.87% to 37.13%. Proposition 11 added privacy to the list of inalienable rights in Article I of the California Constitution.

Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981)

In 1981, the state Supreme Court cited the right to privacy established by Proposition 11 in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981). The court concluded "that the protection afforded the woman's right of procreative choice as an aspect of the right of privacy under the explicit provisions of our Constitution is at least as broad as that described in Roe v. Wade. Consequently, we further conclude that the asserted state's interest in protecting a nonviable fetus is subordinate to the woman's right of privacy."

Reproductive Privacy Act (2002)

In 2002, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which added language to state statute declaring that women have a "fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose and to obtain an abortion."

Abortion rights provided by statute and constitutional law by state

As of July 2022, at least nine states provided a state constitutional right to abortion based on court rulings, including four states that have also guaranteed abortion rights through statute. None of these states provide an explicit constitutional right to abortion; rather, state courts have ruled that provisions related to privacy, liberty, and equality provide a right to abortion. An additional 12 states have provided abortion rights solely through state statutes.

The following map shows the states where statute or constitutional law provides a right to abortion.

Amendments declaring no state constitutional rights

As of January 2022, four states had constitutional amendments declaring that their constitutions do not secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion. The first state to pass a constitutional amendment was Tennessee in 2014. In 2018, Alabama and West Virginia passed constitutional amendments. In 2020, Louisiana voters approved Amendment 1. Arkansas has a constitutional amendment, passed in 1988, that says, "The policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution." In Massachusetts (1986) and Florida (2012), these constitutional amendments were defeated.

History of abortion on the ballot

See also: History of abortion ballot measures

Since the 1970s, abortion-related policies have been a topic for statewide ballot measures across the U.S.

From 1970 to November 2023, there were 65 abortion-related ballot measures, and 44 (68%) of these had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-life. Voters approved 12 (27%) and rejected 32 (73%) of these 44 ballot measures. The other 21 abortion-related ballot measures had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights. Voters approved 15 (71%) and rejected six (29%).

Before Roe v. Wade in 1973, three abortion-related measures were on the ballot in Michigan, North Dakota, and Washington, and each was designed to allow abortion in its respective state.

Abortion-related ballot measures in 2022

See also: 2022 abortion-related ballot measures

The following table provides a list of abortion-related measures that were on the ballot in 2022:

State	Date	Measure	Description	Outcome
Kansas	Aug. 2	Amendment	• Amend the Kansas Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding of abortions • Declare that the state Legislature has to power to pass laws regarding abortion	d
California	Nov. 8	Proposition 1	• Amend the California Constitution to provide that the state cannot "deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions," including decisions to have an abortion or to choose or refuse contraceptives	a
Kentucky	Nov. 8	Amendment 2	• Amend the Kentucky Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding of abortions	d
Michigan	Nov. 8	Proposal 3	• Amend the Michigan Constitution to provide a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, defined to include abortion, contraception, and other matters related to pregnancy	a
Montana	Nov. 8	LR-131	• Provide in state law that infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons • Require medical care to be provided to infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, attempted abortion, or other method	d
Vermont	Nov. 8	Amendment	• Amend the Vermont Constitution to provide a state constitutional right to personal reproductive autonomy	a

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.

On May 2, 2022, after a draft opinion of the Dobbs ruling was published by Politico, Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-39), Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-63), and Governor Gavin Newsom (D) released a statement saying they would work to pass a state constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights and place it on the ballot in November.

Proposition 1 was introduced on June 8, 2022, as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10). On June 20, the state Senate passed the amendment by a vote of 29-8 with three absent. On June 27, 2022, the state Assembly voted to pass the amendment by a margin of 58-17 with five not voting. One Republican, Rep. Suzette Martinez Valladares, joined the Democratic majority in voting in favor of the amendment.

Vote in the California State Senate June 20, 2022
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	29	8	3
Total percent	72.5%	20.0%	7.5%
Democrat	29	0	2
Republican	0	8	1

Vote in the California State Assembly June 27, 2022
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 54  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	58	17	5
Total percent	72.50%	21.25%	6.25%
Democrat	57	0	3
Republican	1	17	1
Independent	0	0	1

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in California

Poll times All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18. Automatic registration California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website. Online registration See also: Online voter registration California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration California allows same-day voter registration. Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury. As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application. All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. As of November 2024, five states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting. The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information. “ Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency. ”

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Abortion on the ballot
• 2022 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• California Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (2021-2022)

Support

• Yes on 1 campaign website
• Yes on 1 Facebook page
• Yes on 1 Twitter page

Opposition

• No on Prop 1 campaign website
• No on Prop 1 Facebook page
• No on Prop 1 Twitter page