2022 California Proposition 27

Last updated

Proposition 27
Flag of California.svg
November 8, 2022 (2022-11-08)

Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes1,906,34217.72%
Light brown x.svg No8,849,20682.28%
Valid votes10,755,54896.49%
Invalid or blank votes391,0723.51%
Total votes11,146,620100.00%
Registered voters/turnout21,940,27450.8%

2022 California Proposition 27 by County.svg
No
  80–90%
  70–80%
Source: Statement of Vote at the Wayback Machine (archived September 23, 2023)

Proposition 27, also known as the Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative was a California ballot proposition that was defeated overwhelmingly by voters in the general election on November 8, 2022. The proposition would have legalized online and mobile sports betting platforms that are associated with an existing gaming tribe. [1]

Contents

Proposition 27 was most notable for its large amount of advertising spending and very large margin of defeat, its 82.28% against to 17.72% in favor marks it as one of the largest margins of defeat for any proposition in history. With both Proposition 27 and the similar Proposition 26 failing, sports betting remains illegal in California. [2] [1]

Background

Following the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down a federal sports betting ban, each state has the ability to regulate sports betting. [3] Sports betting is illegal in California under existing state law. For the 2022 election, Proposition 27 was one of two ballot propositions to legalize sports betting, the other being Proposition 26.

Under Proposition 27, sports betting companies who partner with a Native American tribe could offer online sports betting to those 21 or older. To operate in the state, a betting company must either be operating in five other states plus run twelve casinos, or pay a licensing fee of $100 million. [4]

California's gambling system has long operated solely on land-based tribal casinos which are present in sovereign territories. As a result of their locations, they are immune to prohibition laws in California. Tribal casinos generate 8 billion dollars in annual revenue according to the American Gaming Association. Alternative options such as "Card Rooms" do operate throughout the state and often refer to themselves as "casinos". However these cardrooms do not have slot machines, while tribal casinos do have slot machines, they are also absent of craps, roulette and other house-banked table games. [5]

Contents

The proposition appeared on the ballot as follows: [6]

Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online/mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, nonparticipating tribes. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but not likely to exceed $500 million annually. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually.

Support and opposition

Support

Supporters of the proposition argued legalizing online and mobile sports betting would provide more funding for homeless programs. [7] There is also an environmental impact both negative and positive associated with Prop. 27.

Supporters
Mayors
Tribes
  • Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut tribe [10]
  • Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians [11]
  • Big Valley Ranch of Pomo Indians [12]
Other

Opposition

Opponents of Proposition 27 argued that legalizing mobile and online sports betting would impede on tribal sovereignty and that only major gaming companies would benefit from the legalization as written. [7]

Polling

Poll sourceDate(s)
administered
Sample
size
Margin
of error
YesNoUndecidedLead
UC Berkeley IGS November 4, 20227,602± 2%22%64%14%42%
UC Berkeley IGS October 4, 20228,725± 2.5%27%53%20%26%
Public Policy Institute of California September 2–11, 20221,705± 3.9%34%54%12%20%

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native American gaming</span> Gambling operations on Indian reservations in the United States

Native American gaming comprises casinos, bingo halls, slots halls and other gambling operations on Indian reservations or other tribal lands in the United States. Because these areas have tribal sovereignty, states have limited ability to forbid gambling there, as codified by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. As of 2011, there were 460 gambling operations run by 240 tribes, with a total annual revenue of $27 billion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in the United States</span>

In the United States, gambling is subject to a variety of legal restrictions. In 2008, gambling activities generated gross revenues of $92.27 billion in the United States.

The 70-acre (280,000 m2) Coyote Valley Reservation in Redwood Valley, California is home to about 170 members of the Coyote Valley tribe of the Native American Pomo people, who descend from the Shodakai Pomo. They are a federally recognized tribe, who were formerly known as the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redwood Valley Rancheria</span>

The Redwood Valley Rancheria is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in Redwood Valley, Mendocino County, California. The tribe is primarily composed of Pomo Indians. Redwood Valley Rancheria is a sovereign Indian tribe with the powers of self-governance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Big Valley Rancheria</span> Indian tribe in California, United States

The Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria is a federally recognized tribe of Pomo and Pit River Indians, with a reservation located in Lake County, California, near the town of Finley. They conduct tribal business from Lakeport, California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California</span> Ethnic group

The Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California is a federally recognized tribe of Pomo Indians in California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in Oregon</span>

Gambling in Oregon relates to the laws, regulations, and authorized forms of gambling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in New Jersey</span>

Gambling in New Jersey includes casino gambling in Atlantic City, the New Jersey Lottery, horse racing, off-track betting, charity gambling, amusement games, and social gambling. New Jersey's gambling laws are among the least restrictive in the United States. In 2013, the state began to allow in-state online gambling. Five years later in 2018, the state won a lawsuit that dismantled Nevada's monopoly on legal sports betting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 19</span> Failed measure to legalize marijuana

California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California elections</span>

In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.

Legal forms of gambling in the U.S. state of Massachusetts include casinos, sports betting, parimutuel wagering on horse racing, the Massachusetts Lottery, and charitable gaming. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission regulates commercial operations under state jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 64</span> Referendum on recreational cannabis

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in California</span>

Legal forms of gambling in the U.S. state of California include cardrooms, Indian casinos, the California State Lottery, parimutuel wagering on horse racing, and charitable gaming. Commercial casino-style gaming is prohibited.

Legal forms of gambling in the U.S. state of Connecticut include two Indian casinos, parimutuel wagering, charitable gaming, the Connecticut Lottery, and sports betting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 Idaho Proposition 1</span>

Idaho Proposition 1 (2018) was a ballot initiative titled the "Save Horse Racing in Idaho Act". Voters failed to pass the initiative during the general election held on November 6, 2018; the proposition would have allowed a limited number of Idaho racetracks to operate historical racing gaming terminals. Proposition 1 was an effort to restore a law that previously allowed historical racing in Idaho.

The history of gambling in the United States covers gambling and gaming since the colonial period. The overall theme is one of a general lack of formal regulation, giving way by degrees to widespread prohibition by the early 20th century, followed by a loosening of restrictions in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California elections</span>

The 2022 California elections took place on November 8, 2022. The statewide direct primary election was held on June 7, 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 30</span>

Proposition 30 is a California ballot proposition that appeared in the general election on November 8, 2022. The measure was defeated. The initiative would have raised taxes on the wealthy to fund wildfire management and electric vehicle incentives and infrastructure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 26</span>

Proposition 26, known as the Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative was a California ballot proposition that was rejected by voters in the general election on November 8, 2022. The proposition would have legalized in-person sports gambling at tribal casinos and horse racetracks in California, as well as additional gambling games such as craps and roulette at tribal casinos, and would have created a 10% tax on profits derived from sports betting at racetracks. Voters rejected the proposal overwhelmingly with more than two-thirds of the vote, and the proposition being defeated in every county.

References

  1. 1 2 "California Proposition 27, Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative (2022)". Ballotpedia . Retrieved November 5, 2022.
  2. 1 2 Gedye, Grace (September 6, 2022). "California Prop 27: Online Sports Betting". CalMatters. Retrieved January 24, 2023.
  3. Purdum, David (May 15, 2018). "Supreme Court strikes down federal law prohibiting sports gambling". ESPN. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
  4. Gedye, Grace (April 27, 2022). "California sports betting initiative backed by FanDuel, DraftKings would block small competitors". CalMatters. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
  5. https://www.forbes.com/betting/legal/is-sports-betting-legal-in-california/
  6. "Proposition 27". Secretary of State of California . Archived from the original on November 5, 2022. Retrieved November 5, 2022.
  7. 1 2 "Arguments For and Against Proposition 27" (PDF). California Secretary of State. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  8. Anahi Jaramillo, Estela (October 19, 2022). "Propositions 26 and 27 may determine future of sports betting in California". The Collegian. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  9. 1 2 3 Li, David K. (September 8, 2022). "Gambling on the ballot: Competing sports betting plans duke it out for California voters' favor". NBC News. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  10. 1 2 Lindt, John (August 10, 2022). "Local tribes split on Prop 27, on-line sports betting | John Lindt". The Hanford Sentinel. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  11. Barber, Phil (August 13, 2022). "Local tribes on opposing sides in fight over sports betting". The Press Democrat. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  12. Oxendine, Chez (November 14, 2022). "Tribal sovereignty becomes sticking point in California sports betting battle". Tribal Business News. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  13. Purdum, David (August 12, 2022). "Major League Baseball announces support of online sports betting initiative in California". ESPN. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  14. Schwab, Frank (October 26, 2022). "Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes California's dying sports betting Prop 27". Yahoo Sports.