California Proposition 26, Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative (2022)

California Proposition 26
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Gambling and American Indian issues
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 26, the Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative was on the ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to (i) legalize sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California; (ii) tax profits derived from sports betting at racetracks at 10%; and (iii) legalize roulette and dice games, such as craps, at tribal casinos.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California and roulette and dice games at tribal casinos.

Election results

California Proposition 26
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,514,593	33.02%
No		7,129,122	66.98%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Proposition 26 have changed?

Proposition 26 would have legalized sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California.

The ballot measure would have defined sports betting as wagering on the results of professional, college, or amateur sport and athletic events, with the exception of high school sports and events featuring a California college team. Individuals would have been required to be 21 years of age to engage in legal sports betting.

The ballot measure would have enacted a tax of 10 percent on profits derived from sports betting at racetracks. The state government would have been required to distribute the revenue as follows: (a) 15 percent to the California Department of Health for researching, developing, and implementing programs for problem gambling prevention and mental health and providing grants to local governments to address problem gambling and mental health; (b) 15 percent to the Bureau of Gambling Control for enforcing and implementing sports wagering and other forms of gaming within the state; and (c) 70 percent to the General Fund.

The ballot measure would have also legalized roulette and dice games, such as craps, at tribal casinos; however, tribal-state compacts would have needed to be amended before these games can be offered.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 26?

See also: Campaign finance

The Yes on 26, No on 27 - Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. The coalition was supported by several American Indian tribes, including the top donors to the campaign—the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and the Barona Band of Mission Indians. The campaign had raised nearly $132.2 million.

No on 26 - Taxpayers Against Special Interest Monopolies iled the campaign against the proposal. The campaign, along with a terminated PAC No on the Gambling Power Grab, raised $44.9 million. The top donors to the opposition were gambling-related companies, including the California Commerce Club, Inc, Hawaiian Gardens Casino, and Knighted Ventures LLC.

Where else was sports betting legal?

See also: States with sports betting

As of 2022, sports betting was legal, or laws to legalize had been approved, in 36 states and D.C. Five of the states—New Jersey (2011), Arkansas (2018), Colorado (2019), Maryland (2020), and South Dakota (2020)—legalized sports betting through a ballot measure.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Authorizes New Types of Gambling. Initiative Constitutional and Statutory Amendment.

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:

“

Allows federally recognized Native American tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on tribal lands, subject to compacts negotiated by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature. Beginning in 2022, allows on-site sports wagering at only privately operated horse-racing tracks in four specified counties for persons 21 years or older. Imposes 10 percent tax on sports-wagering profits at horse-racing tracks; directs portion of revenues to enforcement and problem-gambling programs. Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21. Authorizes private lawsuits to enforce other gambling laws.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Increased state revenues, potentially reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from payments made by facilities offering sports wagering and new civil penalties authorized by this measure. Some portion of these revenues would reflect a shift from other existing state and local revenues. Increased state regulatory costs, potentially reaching the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenue or reimbursements to the state. Increased state enforcement costs, not likely to exceed several million dollars annually, related to a new civil enforcement tool for enforcing certain gaming laws.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

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 17, and the FRE is -18. The word count for the ballot title is 10.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 34. The word count for the ballot summary is 88.

Support

The Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming led the Yes on 26 campaign.

Supporters

Political Parties

• Peace and Freedom Party of California

American Indian Tribes

• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Barona Band of Mission Indians
• Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians
• Bishop Paiute Tribe
• Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
• Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians
• Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
• Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria
• Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe
• Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
• Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians
• Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
• The Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
• Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
• Wilton Rancheria
• Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

Unions

• California Nations Indian Gaming Association
• Deputy Sheriff’s Association of San Diego County
• San Diego Police Officers Association

Organizations

• Baptist Ministers Conference of Los Angeles and Southern California
• California Hawaii State Conference NAACP
• California Thoroughbred Breeders Association
• California Young Democrats
• El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
• La Raza Roundtable of California
• Los Angeles Urban League
• National Action Network - Los Angeles
• Rural SURJ of Northern California
• SURJ North San Diego County
• SURJ Sacramento
• SURJ Santa Barbara
• Santa Clarita Branch NAACP
• Showing Up for Racial Justice - San Francisco
• Urban League of San Diego County
• Western Regional Advocacy Project

Arguments

• Steve Stallings, chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association: "A strong, well-regulated gaming industry is of utmost importance to California’s tribal governments and the public. This initiative allows sports wagering in a responsible manner and provides for transparency and strict regulation."
• Mark Macarro, chairman of Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians: "Californians should have the choice to participate in sports wagering at highly regulated, safe and experienced gaming locations. We are very proud to see tribes from across California come together for this effort, which represents an incremental but important step toward giving Californians the freedom to participate in this new activity in a responsible manner."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 26 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES, CIVIL RIGHTS, BUSINESS, PUBLIC SAFETY LEADERS URGE: YES ON PROP. 26 For over two decades, California voters have stood with Indian tribes, granting them the right to operate highly regulated gaming on tribal lands. Indian gaming has helped lift tribes out of poverty—creating jobs and providing revenues for critical tribal services including education, healthcare, housing, public safety, cultural preservation and more. Prop. 26 will continue this legacy by authorizing in-person sports wagering at highly regulated Indian casinos for adults 21 and over and allowing Indian casinos to offer additional games like roulette and dice. PROP. 26 PROMOTES INDIAN SELF-RELIANCE A broad coalition of California Indian tribes supports Prop. 26 because it will promote self-reliance for all tribes, including smaller and non-gaming tribes. Prop. 26 will increase funds for revenue sharing agreements that provide tens of millions every year to California’s smaller, poorer Indian tribes. “I’ve seen first-hand the transformative impacts Indian gaming revenue sharing has had on our people, helping our small tribe pay for schools, health clinics and fire services. Prop. 26 will continue to lift tribes like ours out of poverty and allow us to become more self-reliant.”—Thomas Tortez, Tribal Chairman, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians PROP. 26 IS THE MOST RESPONSIBLE APPROACH TO AUTHORIZING SPORTS WAGERING Prop. 26 will legalize sports wagering in a controlled manner at highly regulated tribal casinos and licensed horse racing facilities. Requiring sports wagering in-person provides the strongest age verification safeguards to prevent underage gambling and protections against problem gambling. On the other hand, Prop. 27 would legalize online and mobile sports gambling in California, turning virtually every cellphone, tablet and laptop into a gambling device—increasing the risk of underage and problem gambling. We respectfully ask you to VOTE YES on Prop. 26 and NO on Prop. 27. PROP 26. BENEFITS ALL OF CALIFORNIA California’s tribal casinos annually generate $26.9 billion for the state economy, support over 150,000 jobs, $12.4 billion in wages and contribute nearly $1.7 billion in revenues to state and local governments. Prop. 26 will create more jobs and economic opportunity for Indian tribes and all Californians. PROP. 26 SUPPORTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND STATE PRIORITIES According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, Prop. 26 will generate tens of millions of dollars annually for vital services such as public schools, homelessness and mental health programs, wildfire prevention, senior services and other state priorities. PROP. 26 CONTAINS PROVISIONS TO ENFORCE CALIFORNIA’S GAMBLING LAWS AND PREVENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY California law prohibits house banked card games like those found in Nevada casinos. Despite this, some cardroom casinos and their financial bankers have been running these prohibited card games—operating illegal gambling and blatantly violating state law. Illegal gambling leads to money laundering, fraud and criminal activity. Prop. 26 will strengthen enforcement of California’s gaming laws to crack down on illegal gambling and prevent this criminal activity. YES ON 26: SUPPORTED BY INDIAN TRIBES, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS, BUSINESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ADVOCATES • American Indian Chamber of Commerce • NAACP California • California District Attorneys Association • Yolo County Fire Chiefs Association • San Diego Police Officers Association • La Raza Roundtable of California • California Nations Indian Gaming Association • Gold Coast Veterans Foundation • Baptist Ministers Conference of LA and Southern California www.YesProp26.com ---Beth Glasco, Tribal Vice-Chairwoman, Barona Band of Mission Indians; Tracy Stanhoff, President, American Indian Chamber of Commerce; and Greg Sarris, Tribal Chairman, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria

Opposition

Taxpayers Against Special Interest Monopolies was registered to oppose Proposition 26.

Opponents

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Corporations

• Bicycle Casino
• Elevation Entertainment Group
• Hawaiian Gardens Casino
• Hollywood Park Casino
• Knighted Ventures LLC
• PT Gaming LLC
• Parkwest Casinos

Unions

• AFSCME Council 36

Organizations

• California Animal Welfare Association
• California Contract Cities Association

Arguments

• Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association: "This initiative does nothing to advance sports wagering, and instead expands the tribal casinos’ tax-free monopoly on gaming and rewards those operators for prioritizing their own wealth over public health and safety."
• Leonard Mendoza, mayor of the City of Commerce: "During the pandemic, California cities that depend on the revenues generated through legal gaming at cardrooms have seen the devastating impacts cardroom closures have had on municipal budgets and the vital services they fund. Hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenues are on the line, money needed to invest in the safety and well-being of our residents."
• Marcel Rodarte, executive director of the California Contract Cities Association: "The California Contract Cities Association overwhelmingly voted to oppose the qualified tribal gaming initiative as it will not benefit our residents or communities. The proposed initiative also exploits the Private Attorneys General Act, opening the floodgates for frivolous lawsuits that will harm city revenues that fund vital city services such as roads, schools, homelessness services and fire protection."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 26 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: PROP. 26 IS A MASSIVE EXPANSION OF GAMBLING IN CALIFORNIA that will legalize betting on professional, college and amateur sports. Five wealthy tribal casinos are sponsoring Prop. 26 to expand their monopoly over gambling in California—so they can make billions more in profits and continue to pay virtually NOTHING in state taxes. PROP. 26: MORE UNDERAGE GAMBLING AND ADDICTION Despite state laws that make it illegal for anyone under 21 to gamble, one of the sponsors of Prop. 26 regularly allows 18-year-olds to gamble, and NOTHING in their measure stops underage gamblers from betting on college and professional sports in a tribal casino. PROP. 26: LEAVES WORKERS UNPROTECTED Prop. 26’s sponsors have refused to allow their workers to join unions or engage in collective bargaining and claimed they are not required to pay the state’s minimum wage—even encouraging employees to go on Medi-Cal rather than pay for their health insurance. Even worse, they have a history of refusing to follow California’s anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws. One tribal casino behind Prop. 26 promised it would waive sovereign immunity for sexual harassment lawsuits in exchange for adding more slot machines. But when one of its employees sued for sexual assault in federal court, the casino claimed immunity and asked a judge to toss the sexual harassment claims. “Prop. 26 leaves workers unprotected from California’s worker safety, wage-and-hour, harassment, and anti-discrimination laws and regulations. Please join us in voting NO on Prop. 26.”—Shavon Moore-Cage, Member, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 36 Management Chapter PROP. 26: PUTS CARD CLUBS OUT OF BUSINESS AND HURTS COMMUNITIES OF COLOR Prop. 26 is sponsored by five wealthy southern California tribal casinos that made big profits staying open during Covid while the state forced their card club competition to close. Now those same casinos want to expand their monopoly and put card clubs completely out of business by changing the State Constitution to give private trial lawyers the enforcement powers of the Attorney General to bury card clubs with frivolous lawsuits. If the sponsors of Prop. 26 are allowed to put card clubs out of business, some of the state’s hardest hit communities of color will lose $500 million in local tax revenue that pays for essential services like police, fire, health care and after-school services. Those communities will lose 32,000 jobs, $1.6 billion in wages and $5.6 billion in economic output. “We support the rights of Native Americans to be self-sufficient, but we oppose Prop. 26 because it will devastate other communities of color in California.”—Julian Canete, President and CEO, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce PROP. 26: EXPANDS GAMBLING AT HORSE RACETRACKS Prop. 26 is cleverly designed to save the horse racing industry by expanding sports betting to horse racetracks around California—giving them millions in new revenue just to save a dying industry that drugs, abuses and kills horses year after year. Please join us and VOTE NO on PROP. 26. --- Madeline Bernstein, President, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles (spcaLA); Jay King, President, California Black Chamber of Commerce; and Floyd Meshad, President, National Veterans Foundation

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 editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 26, Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative (2022)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Public Policy Institute of California	10/14/2022-10/23/2022	1,111 LV	± 5.1%	34%	57%	9%
	Question: "Proposition 26 is called Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Game, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. It allows in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos, and requires that racetracks and casinos that offer sports betting to make certain payments to the state—such as to support state regulatory costs. The fiscal impact is increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 26?"

Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS)	9/22/22 - 9/27/22	6,939 LV	± 2.5%	31%	42%	27%
	Question: "PROPOSITION 26: ALLOWS IN-PERSON ROULETTE, DICE GAMES, SPORTS WAGERING ON TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Also allows sports wagering at certain horse racing tracks; private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws. Directs revenues to General Fund, problem-gambling programs, and enforcement. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were held today how would you vote on Proposition 26?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

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.

The Yes on 26, No on 27 - Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming, a political action committee, was registered to support the ballot initiative. The PAC raised $132.2 million.

The No on 26 - Taxpayers Against Special Interest Monopolies PAC was registered to oppose the ballot initiative. No on the Gambling Power Grab PAC was registered but terminated on November 16, 2022. The PACs raised a combined $44.9 million.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$131,250,625.00	$1,018,955.79	$132,269,580.79	$126,574,424.87	$127,593,380.66
Oppose	$44,909,001.00	$16,032.00	$44,925,033.00	$45,046,430.41	$45,062,462.41
Total	$176,159,626.00	$1,034,987.79	$177,194,613.79	$171,620,855.28	$172,655,843.07

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Proposition 26
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 26, No on 27 - Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming	$131,250,625.00	$1,018,955.79	$132,269,580.79	$126,574,424.87	$127,593,380.66
Total	$131,250,625.00	$1,018,955.79	$132,269,580.79	$126,574,424.87	$127,593,380.66

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria	$31,850,000.00	$9,359.00	$31,859,359.00
Pechanga Band of Indians	$30,150,000.00	$193,955.10	$30,343,955.10
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation	$24,600,000.00	$314,507.16	$24,914,507.16
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians	$11,500,125.00	$1,743.25	$11,501,868.25
Barona Band of Mission Indians	$11,250,500.00	$212,501.39	$11,463,001.39

Oppose

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

Committees in opposition to Proposition 26
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on 26 - Taxpayers Against Special Interest Monopolies	$43,824,001.00	$16,032.00	$43,840,033.00	$43,961,430.41	$43,977,462.41
No on the Gambling Power Grab	$1,085,000.00	$0.00	$1,085,000.00	$1,085,000.00	$1,085,000.00
Total	$44,909,001.00	$16,032.00	$44,925,033.00	$45,046,430.41	$45,062,462.41

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Hawaiian Gardens Casino	$10,240,000.00	$0.00	$10,240,000.00
California Commerce Club, Inc	$10,085,001.00	$0.00	$10,085,001.00
Knighted Ventures LLC	$4,215,000.00	$0.00	$4,215,000.00
Park West Casinos, Inc	$2,240,000.00	$0.00	$2,240,000.00
The Bicycle Hotel & Casino	$2,240,000.00	$0.00	$2,240,000.00
Garden City Inc. Casino	$2,000,000.00	$0.00	$2,000,000.00

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 editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "The in-person gaming changes, much like the games already allowed at tribal casinos, will be highly regulated and for adults only. In short, we understand the desire of Native American tribes to want to increase gaming options at the casinos, and Prop 26 is the best way to do it. Vote YES on Prop 26."

Opposition

• The Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Voters should reject Proposition 26, which would expand onsite tribal casino gambling to allow sports wagering, roulette and dice games such as craps and would also allow sports betting at horserace tracks."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "California doesn’t need more gambling or more lawsuits. Propositions 26 and 27 present more risks than benefits, which makes both of them a bad bet. Vote no."
• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: The San Francisco Chronicle said the legislature should ultimately draft a sports betting law. The board wrote,"But the push to legalize sports betting and online gambling isn’t going away, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Prop’s 26 and 27. Even if they lose, another measure is already in the works for the 2024 ballot. Voters should say no to these industry-backed measures and demand legislators do the job we pay them to do."
• The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "This is a raw money grab and has nothing to do with 'self-reliance' and 'responsible' gaming. We strongly support legalizing sports betting, but not by letting tribes crush their old and new competitors alike. We urge a no vote on Prop. 26."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "[A]dvocates have no good explanation for why the measure includes a hugely self-serving proviso that makes it easier for tribes to sue and punish rival card-room operators. And they barely respond to criticism the measure would prop up racetracks at a time when concerns about their treatment of horses have never been more intense. ... Future California ballot measures on gaming are inevitable. They should also be better crafted. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends 'no' votes on both Propositions 26 and 27."
• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Prop. 26 would enable a more defensible and limited expansion of gambling on tribal lands. But it muddies its argument with an overreaching attempt to litigate the tribes’ long-running and somewhat arcane dispute with urban card clubs. Its lifeline for racetracks, moreover, associates the measure with a dying industry plagued by horse drugging and deaths. And the divisions among the state’s tribes raise further doubts about the proposal. ... In the meantime, the job before voters is to reject Propositions 26 and 27."

Background

States with sports betting

As of September 1, 2022, sports betting was legal, or laws to legalize had been approved, in 36 states and D.C. The following map shows the status of sports betting in each state.

Sports betting ballot measures

As of 2022, five of the states to legalize sports betting did so through a ballot measure. All of the ballot measures were approved by voters.

State	Year	Measure	Type	'Yes' Percent	'No' Percent	Outcome
New Jersey	2011	Public Question 1	Legislative	63.91%	36.09%	a
Arkansas	2018	Issue 4	Initiative	54.10%	45.90%	a
Colorado	2019	Proposition DD	Legislative	51.41%	48.59%	a
Maryland	2020	Question 2	Legislative	67.07%	32.93%	a
South Dakota	2020	Amendment B	Legislative	58.47%	41.53%	a

2018 Supreme Court ruling on sports betting

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case, Murphy v. NCAA (originally Christie v. NCAA), regarding the legality of a law implementing New Jersey Public Question 1 (2011). On May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the federal government could not require states to prohibit sports betting, thereby overturning the federal ban on sports betting and allowing states to legalize sports betting.

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) and Murphy v. NCAA

See also: Murphy v. NCAA

Murphy v. NCAA (originally Christie v. NCAA) was a case about the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is based on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and dictates that Congress cannot commandeer state governments to enforce federal law. The question, in this case, was whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that prohibits states from authorizing sports gambling, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine.

The United States Congress passed PASPA in 1992. The act prohibited any governmental entity, including states, from sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing, and/or authorizing by law any wagering scheme on amateur or professional team games. However, PASPA contained certain exemptions. One of those exemptions allowed New Jersey to enact a sports gambling scheme if the scheme were written into law within one year of PASPA's enactment. At that time, New Jersey declined to implement such a scheme, and the one-year exemption under PASPA expired.

Then, in 2011, New Jersey voters approved an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution authorizing the legislature to legalize betting on the results of professional, college, and amateur sporting events.

Based on the amendment, New Jersey passed the Sports Wagering Act of 2012. The law provided for regulated sports wagering in New Jersey's casinos and racetracks and established a state regulatory scheme for sports wagering in the state. Four professional sports leagues (the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (referred to together as the leagues) filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop enforcement of the New Jersey law, arguing that it violated PASPA. In response, New Jersey acknowledged that the law violated PASPA, but argued that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was therefore unconstitutional.

U.S. sports betting revenue

The following table details the amount wagered, the sportsbook revenue, and tax revenue from each state with sportsbetting operations from 2018 to 2022. New Jersey reported the largest amount of money wagered with nearly $28 billion. The state with the highest tax revenue is New York with over $274 million.

U.S. Sports betting revenue: 2018-2022
State	Amount wagered	Sportsbook revenue	Tax revenue
Arizona	$3,489,589,080	$263,555,616	$10,443,398
Arkansas	$155,662,786	$17,792,276	$2,531,234
Colorado	$6,945,433,171	$430,970,604	$18,973,074
Connecticut	$982,549,333	$74,748,393	$6,660,221
Delaware	$487,347,188	$72,391,098	$47,737,086
Illinois	$12,261,927,781	$879,153,524	$141,679,022
Indiana	$8,089,140,715	$630,171,358	$59,866,281
Iowa	$3,906,998,820	$237,082,525	$17,095,842
Louisiana	$1,007,680,459	$84,733,003	$12,607,137
Maryland	$155,689,688	$18,343,798	$2,693,740
Michigan	$6,283,228,048	$496,679,805	$16,309,264
Mississippi	$1,696,196,417	$189,904,121	$22,788,494
Montana	$85,139,368	$11,613,057	Unavailable
Nevada	$24,160,439,731	$1,374,665,000	$92,789,888
New Hampshire	$1,395,381,722	$91,005,154	$42,006,460
New Jersey	$27,931,770,291	$1,877,313,887	$237,107,902
New York	$7,895,333,592	$576,338,213	$274,403,624
Oregon	$798,329,459	$71,597,966	Unavailable
Pennsylvania	$14,812,660,057	$1,110,663,339	$265,577,524
Rhode Island	$1,122,667,612	$97,421,604	$49,685,018
South Dakota	$5,516,235	$427,334	$38,460
Tennessee	$4,405,129,258	$377,802,647	$62,787,367
Virginia	$4,978,186,649	$422,419,039	$29,779,526
Washington D.C.	$360,335,187	$45,923,244	$3,234,856
West Virginia	$1,481,998,192	$115,662,566	$11,566,257
Wyoming	$87,328,240	$7,942,939	$273,296

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statutes certified for the 2022 ballot:

• Signatures: 997,139 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was 131 days before the general election, which was around June 30, 2022. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months and proponents are recommended to file signatures at least two months before the verification deadline.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

Stages of this initiative

On November 4, 2019, four tribal chairman—Edwin 'Thorpe' Romero, Jeff L. Grubbe, Anthony Roberts, and Mark Macarro—filed the ballot initiative. Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) released ballot language for the initiative on January 21, 2020, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures. The original deadline to file signatures was July 20, 2020, but the deadline was extended to December 14, 2020.

On February 26, 2020, proponents announced that the number of collected signatures surpassed the 25-percent threshold (155,803 signatures) to require legislative hearings on the ballot initiative. In 2014, Senate Bill 1253 was enacted into law, which required the legislature to assign ballot initiatives that meet the 25-percent threshold to committees to hold joint public hearings on the initiatives not later than 131 days before the election.

In March 2020, the Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering suspended paid signature gathering in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Jacob Mejia, a spokesperson for the campaign, said, "Because the health and well being of Californians is foremost, we paused paid signature-gathering efforts for the time being." Meija added, "We are just shy of one million signatures and would have reached our goal well ahead of the deadline before the unprecedented orders around Covid-19."

On June 9, 2020, the campaign sued the state to extend the deadline to file signatures beyond July 20, 2020. The lawsuit asked the court to extend the deadline until all California counties have moved into the third (of four) reopening stages following the coronavirus stay-at-home order or by at least 90 days. Kenneth Kahn, chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, said, "This is about seeking to preserve the people’s democratic right to pursue an initiative during the pandemic. Tribal leaders temporarily suspended signature gathering as a sacrifice to protect everyone’s public health." Judge James P. Arguelles ordered that the deadline be extended to October 12, 2020, saying, "Despite Petitioners’ diligence, the 180-day deadline coupled with Executive Branch orders responding to the COVID-19 pandemic significantly inhibits Petitioners’ ability to place their initiative on the November 2022 ballot." The Superior Court later extended to deadline to December 14, 2020, due to coronavirus-related restrictions.

On December 14, 2020, the campaign reported filing about 1.4 million signatures. Counties were not required to report the number of valid signatures according to the random sample until March 9, 2021, due to a coronavirus-related executive order.

The random sample of signatures verified did not project the required 110 percent of valid signatures required; therefore, counties had to conduct a full sample with a deadline of May 26, 2021. On May 26, the state reported that 1,061,282 signatures were valid—64,143 more than the minimum number required to appear on the ballot.

Sponsors of the measure hired 2020 Ballcamp LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $10,827,151.95 was spent to collect the 997,139 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $10.86.

Hollywood Park Casino vs. Weber

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the initiative violate the state's single-subject rule?
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and application for stay denied
Plaintiff(s): Hollywood Park Casino Company, LLC and Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova, LLC	Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) and Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering
Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule because it includes sports betting, roulette and dice games, and a provision allowing the tribes to file suit against organizations that violate other state gambling limits.	Defendant argument: All matters in the initiative are related to gambling.

  Source: San Francisco Chronicle

On December 21, 2021, Hollywood Park Casino Company, LLC and Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova, LLC filed a lawsuit against the California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) and the sponsors of the campaign arguing the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule. The lawsuit states, "The Initiative engages in ‘log-rolling’ by forcing voters to accept or reject an all-or-nothing grab bag of disparate provisions. The Initiative ties a popular sports wagering measure to unrelated, controversial measures that the Gaming Tribes have tried and failed to obtain by other means."

The sponsors of the initiative responded that the matters in the initiative are all related to the subject of gambling. They also said, "Petitioners believe the Initiative challenged in this case violates the single-subject rule, while the initiative Petitioners support as an alternative does not. Both cannot be true."

Hollywood Park Casino Company, LLC and Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova, LLC are supporting Initiative #21-0009, which would allow American Indian tribes, licensed racing associations, state-licensed gaming establishments, and professional sports team leagues to offer sports betting. These entities would be allowed to offer online or mobile sports wagering.

On February 24, 2022, the California Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs refusing to block the measure. The plaintiffs said they would refile the case in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, 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. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. 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
• Gambling on the ballot
• American Indian issues on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Petition #19-0029