Voters soundly rejected Propositions 26 and 27, but that doesn’t end the debate over sports betting in California. Those behind the election campaign are still figuring out their next steps.
After raising nearly half a billion dollars in campaign cash and inundating Californians with ads, the intense — and sometimes confusing — battle over sports betting ended Tuesday evening.
Voters rejected two separate measures to legalize gambling — and it wasn’t close. California appears to be the first state to ban all sports betting at the ballot box.
Proposition 26, sponsored by about a dozen Native American tribes, would have allowed individual sports betting at tribal casinos and four horse racing tracks . Of the votes counted as of today, about 30% supported the measure and about 70% opposed it.
Proposition 27, which would have allowed online sports betting, appears headed for a historic and crushing defeat. With 83% against only 17% support so far, it’s on track to be one of the worst political disasters of the last century in California.
The measure was funded by several major sports betting companies, including FanDuel, DraftKings and BetMGM. It received the support of three tribes but strong opposition from more than 50 tribes and tribal organizations.
“Everybody knows this: You don’t come to try to rig the races,” said Victor Rocha, chairman of the National Sports Federation of India conference.
Bill Pascrell III, a former professional bettor in the gambling industry, said: “I’ve been in the gambling industry, and I’ve never seen anything like this. “The kind of money they spent and the results they got are really bad.”
CalMatters reached out to DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM for interviews. All three referred CalMatters to a campaign spokesperson.
“Our coalition knew that passing Prop 27 was going to be an uphill climb, and we’re always ready to go to California,” Nathan Click, a spokesman for the campaign, said on election night. “This campaign underscores our determination to see California follow more than half of the state in legalizing safe and responsible sports betting.”
How did this happen?
Even before the campaigns began in earnest, Californians were not keen on sports betting. Read also : San Jose State vs. Western Michigan live stream, channel, odds, how to watch on CBS Sports Network. When researchers at UC Berkeley’s Institute for Governmental Studies asked potential voters in February whether they would support a constitutional amendment to legalize sports betting, 45% said they intended to vote yes, while 33 % say they intend to vote.
As the campaign progressed, support waned and opposition grew. In early November 53% of likely voters said they were opposed to face-to-face betting and 64% said they were opposed to online betting. In general, support for initiatives tends to decline as elections approach.
Californians experienced many advertisements, some of which made confusing claims or did not mention gambling at all. Voters who saw more of those ads opposed the measures more than people who saw fewer or none, a UC Berkeley poll found.
The proposals, themselves, were complex, and were not focused on sports betting. An individual approach would have allowed tribes to add roulette and dice games, for example, while debates over the internet measure focused on how it would provide funding for homeless solutions.
For the tribes, whose casinos have long been the only place to bet in California for certain types of gambling, defeating the online gambling system – which would have allowed state companies providing gambling to the country – was more important than winning on an individual basis. . That was reflected in how the tribes spent their advertising dollars, said Jacob Mejia, vice president of public affairs for the Pechanga Indian Band, one of the tribes that sponsored the measure. personality and resistance to online production.
“The reality is that we haven’t done meaningful advertising for (individual measurement),” Mejia said. Online sports betting, he said, was “the biggest threat to Indian sports in a generation.”
Does anyone come out on top?
When the two measures are so decisively reduced, after so much money has been spent, can anyone really be called a winner? See the article : Sports betting could begin as early as January, the Mass. Gaming Commission says.
Card rooms — businesses across the country that offer a limited variety of card games for betting — are happy with the results. They opposed the sports betting system because it contained a provision that allowed private citizens to bring lawsuits to enforce gambling laws – something they feared generations would use to bring lawsuits. expensive against them.
“We are very grateful to the voters for seeing what it is and voting correctly,” said Keith Sharp, general manager of Gardens Casino, a card room in Los Angeles County.
Nations, which have invested heavily in winning online sports betting, can also come forward. “It’s a big win,” said Rocha, with the National Sports Federation of India.
“It wasn’t just ‘let’s stop this thing,’ it was ‘let’s put this thing down.’ And that’s what they did,” he said.
Defeat of Prop. 27 and the state’s gambling companies also strengthen the tribe’s hand in any future negotiations by demonstrating their ability to block objections, said Becca Giden, policy director at the department. Eilers research & amp; Krejcik’s game. He said, their attitude can be, “‘There is nothing more that we do not accept. So, come to the table willing to hear us, and, perhaps, ‘come to the table willing to accept the terms we propose.'”
What comes next?
It’s uncertain what’s next for sports betting in California. Just because voters say “no” to an idea one year doesn’t prevent it from appearing on their ballots in the next election — or the one after that. Read also : SDSU Athletics Relocation Kit for San Diego Sports 760. Case in point: Californians this week voted down a plan to increase regulations for dialysis clinics for the third time since 2018.
The gaming companies that support online gambling won’t leave California, it seems.
“Many states and local governments benefit from the significant tax revenue that gambling provides, and as California faces declining tax rates and In an uncertain economy, online sports betting can provide great solutions to fill future funding gaps,” Press, a spokesperson for Prop. 27, he said in a statement on Tuesday evening.
“Californians currently place billions of bets each year on illegal offshore sports betting websites – unsafe and unregulated businesses that offer no protection for children or consumers and support the state’s priorities. Californians deserve the benefits of a safe, responsible, regulated and taxed sports betting market, and we’re committed to making it happen here ,” he said.
Other tribal leaders also do not predict the possibility that they will make another request in the future. “As a tribe, we will analyze these results and generally have a discussion about what the future of gaming might look like in California,” Mark Macarro, tribal chairman of the Pechanga Band of Indians, said. in an election night statement.
2022 Election
The latest information on the 2022 general election in California
There are two ways a team – or anyone – can try again to get sports betting legalized. One is to go through the entire process of counting votes, drawing up a plan, gathering signatures, and, if all goes well, putting it on the ballot.
Another option is to work with the state Legislature. It could pass legislation allowing a new form of gambling, said I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law expert and professor emeritus at Whittier Law School. Or lawmakers could pass a constitutional amendment that would be put on the ballot for voters to decide.
In 2019 and 2020, state lawmakers considered changes to legalize gambling, but complex negotiations between various gambling interests were not resolved in time and the effort died. . Bill Dodd, the Democratic state senator from Napa who authored the 2019 legislative effort, said in a statement that “if the parties are interested in resolving this issue again, I am willing to help make any agreement that can be reached.”
Did this year’s explosion pave an easy path? “I don’t think the power has changed,” said Adam Gray, a Merced Democratic Assembly member who wrote the 2019 amendment, but is running for Congress and will not return to the legislature next year.
The only thing that has changed, he said, “is $450 million that was in someone else’s bank account. Now it’s in the pocket of other consultants.”
Will there be another ballot measure?
This year’s election ballots are still being counted, so any 2024 election campaign may not begin for a while.
And it is not clear that the generations – if they were to develop another proposal – agree in this way.
“Our view continues to be that any proposal that comes from the tribes, it has to be supported by the voters,” said Mejia, of the Pechanga Indian Group, which supported this year’s race betting style. .
After Tuesday night’s results, he said, “it should be clear that many voters in California say ‘no’ to legalizing online gambling.”
“Tribes can stand forever. They don’t need to bet on sports. California does not require sports betting. ”
But there are other tribal groups, including the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, that have introduced a third step to legalize gambling. Their measures would have allowed races to bet in person and only on online games. It didn’t make it to the 2022 election and recently failed to gather enough people to make it to the 2024 election – but that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t exist.
“Our group feels that [the measure] is the best way for online gaming in California,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the organization that campaigned against the measure. Prop. 27 and include those tribes.
But races may not be in a hurry. “Tribes can stand forever. They don’t need to bet on sports. California doesn’t need sports betting,” said Rocha, with the Indian Gaming Association. “The industry needs it, but do people need it?”
Sports betting companies can also decide to sponsor another option. But in the short term, that might not be the smartest move. “If this happens again in two years, it will be the same result,” said Pascrell, a betting expert.
He added: “Maybe take a step back to California for a while, let things settle, so you can rebuild.” Meanwhile, companies can look to other countries where they can start online casino poker, which is more lucrative than sports betting, he said.
“You have to respect the tribes, who have a lot of resources and a lot of political support in the country,” Pascrell said.
Following a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed states to legalize gambling, 31 states and Washington, D.C., have begun the process, and five more states have officially registered the new form of gambling but have not yet started betting, according to the American Gaming Association. Twenty-six states plus D.C. have legalized mobile betting, while other countries require people to bet in person.
In most states that have legalized sports betting, it has taken place in federal courts, said a spokesman for the sports association. But seven states have legalized gambling through voting procedures set by legislatures: Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey and South Dakota. California is the only state where voters have rejected sports betting. In New Jersey – which has allowed sports betting since 2018 – voters recently shot down a ballot measure that would have allowed betting on college sports in the state.
Sports companies that have invested tens of millions in Prop. 27 also have investors to consider. This year’s measures lost a lot, said Giden, “I don’t know how many investors will stand to do that again.”
