California Proposition 27, Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund Initiative (2022)

California Proposition 27
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Gambling
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 27, the Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund 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 legalizing online and mobile sports betting for persons 21 years of age or older, establishing regulations for the mobile sports betting industry, imposing a 10% tax on sports betting revenues and licensing fees, and allocating tax revenue to an account for homelessness programs and an account for tribes not operating sports betting.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California.

Election results

California Proposition 27
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,906,339	17.72%
No		8,849,200	82.28%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Proposition 27 have done?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 27 proposed a constitutional amendment and statute to authorize a gaming tribe, an online sports betting platform with an operating agreement with a gaming tribe, or a qualified gaming company with a market access agreement with a gaming tribe may operate online sports betting for individuals 21 years of age or older in the state but outside of Indian lands. The amendment would have prohibited online sports betting on youth sports. The proposed law would have created the Division of Online Sports Betting Control within the Department of Justice. The initiative would have given the division authority to regulate the online sports betting industry and investigate illegal sports betting activities. The amendment would have taken effect on January 1, 2023.

The proposed law would have established the California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund. The revenue from licensing fees, renewals, and the sports wagering tax would have been deposited into the fund. After deducting regulatory costs, 85% of the fund's revenues would have been allocated to California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account for permanent and interim housing and 15% of revenues to the Tribal Economic Development Account, which would have been established by the initiative to provide funds to Indian tribes for expanding tribal government, public health, education, infrastructure, and economic development.

At the time of the election, mobile and in-person sports betting was illegal in California.

Who supported and opposed Proposition 27?

See also: Support and Opposition

Yes on 27 - Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support led the campaign in support of Proposition 27. The campaign raised over $169.1 million. Its top three donors included BetMGM LLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC (FanDuel Sportsbook), and Crown Gaming, Inc. (DraftKings). Nathan Click, a spokesman for the campaign, said, "Our measure is the only one that would guarantee hundreds of millions each year in solutions to homelessness and mental health support. We have found Californians are enthusiastic about it and the housing and mental health solutions it would provide the state."

Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming and Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming led campaigns in opposition to the initiative. Together the committees reported $249.3 million. The top three donors included the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Chairman James Siva of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association said, "Don’t be fooled. These measures are not a fix to homelessness, but rather a massive explosion of gaming that will directly undercut tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency."

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.

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the initiative.

Sports Betting Legalization: Authorizes online and mobile sports wagering

Proposition 27 would have amended the California Constitution to authorize a gaming tribe, an online sports betting platform with an operating agreement with a gaming tribe, or a qualified gaming company with a market access agreement with a gaming tribe to operate online sports betting for individuals 21 years of age or older in the state but outside of Indian lands. The measure was designed to require qualified gaming companies to be licensed to offer online sports wagering in at least 10 states or territories or to be licensed to offer online sports wagering in at least five states or territories and operate at least 12 casinos. The amendment would have prohibited online sports betting on youth sports. The taxes proposed by the new law would also have preempted all other existing and future state and local taxes related to online sports betting. The amendment would have taken effect on January 1, 2023.

The initiative stated that if a conflicting measure related to online sports betting also appears on the same ballot, the initiative receiving the most "yes" votes will supersede the other and go into effect. However, the initiative also stated that if this initiative and the other sports betting initiative that qualified for the November ballot were both approved by voters, they would both take effect because the two are not in conflict. Proposition 26 was defeated.

California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund: Revenue sources and fund distribution

The proposed law would have established the California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund. The revenue from licensing fees, renewals, and the sports wagering tax would have been deposited into the fund. Tribes and technology companies would have been required to pay a one-time $10 million licensing fee and a license renewal fee of $1 million every five years. Gaming companies would have been required to pay a one-time $100 million licensing fee and a license renewal fee of $10 million every five years. The sports wagering tax would have been 10% and apply to sports wagers after deducting free bets, promotional credits, players' winnings and prizes, and federal gaming taxes. The initiative would have also provided for a tax deduction equal to 20% of the amount operators paid in initial and renewal licensing fees.

After deducting regulatory costs, 85% of the fund's revenues would have been allocated to California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account for permanent and interim housing and 15% of revenues to the Tribal Economic Development Account, which would have established by the initiative to provide funds to Indian tribes for expanding tribal government, public health, education, infrastructure, and economic development. The initiative would have given fund oversight authority to the California Attorney General and California State Auditor. The amendment would have exempted the fund's revenues from state spending limits and minimum education funding levels.

Division of Online Sports Betting Control: The establishment of the division

The proposed law would have created the Division of Online Sports Betting Control within the Department of Justice. The initiative would have given the division authority to regulate the online sports betting industry and investigate illegal sports betting activities. The division would have been responsible for developing licensing criteria and regulations and establishing the list of eligible events and bet types. The division would have been prohibited from requiring operators to hold a percentage of bets or specific amounts and to report or display the amount bet on specific sports events.

The division would have been headed by a director and also have a 17-member advisory committee to provide policy recommendations. The measure would have required that the advisory committee gives written input before any regulation is adopted. The initiative would also have provided a $30 million loan from the state's General Fund to the DOJ to help establish the division and require the loan be repaid within five years.

Violations of the proposed law: Fines and penalties for violating the proposed law

Under the proposed law, the division would have been given the authority to impose fines, subject licensees to probation, and revoke licenses for violating the law. The maximum fines for an online sports betting operator or supplier would have been $15,000 when a violation included a person under 21 years of age and $10,000 for all other violations. For a key person, as defined by the law, the maximum fines would have been $7,500 when a violation included a person under 21 years of age and $5,000 for all other violations. For all other persons, the maximum fines would have been $5,000 when a violation included a person under 21 years of age and $2,500 for all other violations. The maximum fine for multiple violations related to the same transaction or occurrence would have been $100,000 for online sports betting operator or supplier, $50,000 for a key person, and $25,000 for all other persons. The initiative would have also imposed a 15% tax applied to the amount a person bets on individuals who illegally make online sports wagers.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

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

”

Petition summary

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

“

Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them. Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on Indian lands. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues and licensing fees. Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to: 85% to homelessness programs; 15% to nonparticipating tribes. Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Increased state revenues, potentially reaching the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually, from online sports wagering-related taxes, licensing fees, and penalties. Some portion of these revenues would reflect a shift from other existing state and local revenues. Increased state regulatory costs, potentially reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually, that would be fully or partially offset by the increased revenues.

”

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 14, and the FRE is 2. The word count for the ballot title is 11.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 19. The word count for the ballot summary is 85.

Support

Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support led the campaign in support of Proposition 27.

Supporters

Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support provided a list of endorsements on the campaign’s website, which is available here.

Officials

• Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer (Nonpartisan)
• Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia (D)
• Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf
• Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg (D)

American Indian Tribes

• Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians
• Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe

Corporations

• Major League Baseball

Arguments

• Tomiquia Moss, CEO of All Home: "If we permit and regulate online sports betting, California residents should benefit from it. Twenty-one other states have already made this decision, our state should be next. When all people have a safe and decent place to call home, it benefits entire communities. The funding this measure provides would provide a huge lift for efforts to deliver housing and support to people experiencing homelessness and make us all better off."
• Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia (D): "I’m joining my fellow mayors in endorsing this important initiative because this is an all-hands on deck moment in our fight against homelessness. To solve California’s homelessness crisis over the long-term, we need sustainable sources of funding to house those experiencing homelessness and provide them the medical and mental health services they need. That’s what this measure provides."
• Tamera Kohler, CEO of the Regional Task Force on Homelessness for the San Diego Area: "This initiative is a critical step forward, dedicating revenue to the issue of homelessness is a win-win for our state. It would provide an ongoing funding source of hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fight homelessness and provide mental health services to those most in need. We are excited to partner with the coalition to pass this important measure in November 2022."
• Nathan Click, a spokesman for the campaign: "Our measure is the only one that would guarantee hundreds of millions each year in solutions to homelessness and mental health support. We have found Californians are enthusiastic about it and the housing and mental health solutions it would provide the state."
• Major League Baseball (MLB): "As legalized sports betting continues to expand across the country, Major League Baseball remains committed to protecting the integrity of its games and creating a safe experience for fans who wish to wager on those games. Proposition 27 -- the only measure on California's upcoming ballot that would authorize and regulate online sports betting -- includes strong integrity provisions designed to help MLB carry out those commitments."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 27 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: Vote YES on Proposition 27 Permanent Solutions for Homelessness, Mental Health, Addiction & Tribal Funding Non-profit leaders, mayors, and California Tribes support Proposition 27 because it will provide hundreds of millions of dollars in permanent solutions to homelessness, mental health, and addiction in California. All funding will be subject to strict audits and oversight to ensure it is spent effectively. Proposition 27 will also benefit every California Tribe—especially rural and economically disadvantaged Tribes who don't own big casinos. By taxing and regulating safe and responsible online sports betting for adults 21 and over, California can help solve homelessness and provide thousands of Californians mental health care and addiction treatment. Proposition 27 provides the most solutions for California: Prop. 27 protects minors and strictly prevents those under 21 from betting. Prop. 27 requires mandatory audits to ensure homelessness and mental health funding is spent effectively. Prop. 27 is the only sports betting measure that will fund permanent homelessness and mental health solutions. Prop. 27 is the only measure that guarantees funding for disadvantaged Tribes. Proposition 27 will fund hundreds of millions of dollars each year in shelter, housing, addiction treatment and mental health support for Californians who need it most. Ricardo Flores, non-profit leader and housing advocate, on why his organization supports Prop. 27: "California's homelessness crisis is a statewide emergency. Our state has never fully invested in permanent solutions to end homelessness. Prop. 27 allows organizations like mine to have an ongoing revenue source to fund desperately needed services: shelter, housing, and support. All with strict audits to ensure every dime is spent effectively. No other sports betting proposition will generate significant revenue for homelessness and mental health services." Tamera Kohler, CEO of San Diego's Regional Task Force on Homelessness, on Prop. 27: "One in six Californians experiences mental illness. It's a crisis affecting nearly every family. Prop. 27 will help generate hundreds of millions of dollars every year to fund mental health treatment, and solutions to homelessness and addiction. By passing Prop. 27, we can give more people the care they need and the hope they deserve." Chairman Jose "Moke" Simon of Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, on Prop. 27: "My tribe has had so much taken away from us—our land, our ceremonies, our culture—and our sovereignty is constantly under attack. Unlike Tribes with large casinos, my Tribe struggles to provide basic needs for our people. Prop. 27 is the only proposition that helps disadvantaged Tribes like mine, and Prop. 27 is the only one that ensures every California Tribe benefits. "Don’t believe the false attacks on Prop. 27. By taxing and regulating online sports betting for adults over 21, we can finally address homelessness in California while protecting tribal sovereignty." Vote YES on Prop. 27—tax and regulate safe and responsible online sports betting, support California Tribes and finally do something to solve homelessness, mental health, and addiction in California.---Tamera Kohler, CEO, San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness; Jose “Moke” Simon, Chairman, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; and Ricardo Flores, Executive Director, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) San Diego

Campaign advertisements

The following videos were released by Yes on 27:

Title: "Chairman Simon Interview - English - 30s"

Title: "False Attacks"

Title: "We Call It - English - 30s"

Opposition

Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming and Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming led campaigns in opposition to Proposition 27.

Opponents

Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming provided a list of endorsements on the campaign’s website, which is available here.

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Juan Vargas (D)
• Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D)
• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins (D)
• Senate Minority Leader Scott Wilk (R)
• Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R)
• Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D)

Political Parties

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

American Indian Tribes

• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Barona Band of Mission Indians
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

Unions

• California Teachers Association
• Communications Workers of America

Organizations

• American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California
• California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
• California Black Chamber of Commerce
• California Coalition for Rural Housing
• California Hawaii State Conference NAACP
• California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• California League of United Latin American Citizens
• California State Association of Counties
• La Raza Roundtable of California
• League of California Cities
• Los Angeles Urban League
• Western Regional Advocacy Project

Arguments

• Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming website: "If it passes, the promise of gaming exclusivity between California voters and our Native American Tribes will be broken, threatening the $23.2 billion in economic activity and 181,532 California jobs Tribal gaming provides. This measure is a direct attack on tribal sovereignty."
• Chairman James Siva of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association: "Don’t be fooled. These measures are not a fix to homelessness, but rather a massive explosion of gaming that will directly undercut tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency."
• Raymond Welch, chairman of the Barona Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County, and Greg Sarris, tribal chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in Sonoma County: "Their measure would authorize the largest expansion of gambling in state history – allowing virtually anyone, anywhere, anytime to gamble. Studies show this unprecedented access would lead to more problem gambling, addiction and crime. In fact, the National Council on Problem Gambling reports online sports bettors are up to five times more likely to develop problem gambling than other types of gamblers."
• Doug Terfher, vice president of marketing for MaximBet: MaximBet is a sports betting company launched in 2021 that would not be able to operate in California under the proposed initiative. Terfher said, "We want (California) to be as open and available to as many operators as possible with where we are in our growth journey."
• Pat Fong Kushida, president and CEO of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce: "The Corporate Online Gambling Proposition was written for the sole benefit of out-of-state gambling corporations. This measure would give online gambling corporations near total control over the sports wagering market, effectively hijacking any local economic benefits for our small businesses, while sending 90% of profits from sports gambling out-of-state and even out of country."
• Senate Minority Leader Scott Wilk (R-21): "Prop 27 eliminates the sovereign right of California tribes to operate gaming in California. They have proven to be excellent stewards of this responsibility."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 27 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: JOIN CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES, PARENTS, TEACHERS, HOMELESS ADVOCATES, PUBLIC SAFETY LEADERS: VOTE NO ON 27—THE CORPORATE ONLINE GAMBLING PROPOSITION Prop. 27 is a deceptive scheme written and promoted by out-of-state corporations to legalize online and mobile sports gambling in California. It won't solve homelessness, but it will turn virtually every cellphone, tablet and laptop into a gambling device. Proponents are deceptively marketing Prop. 27 as a “solution” to homelessness. But just like when we were told the state lottery would be a solution for public education, we can’t believe these false promises. Here’s why our broad coalition urges NO on Prop. 27. UNDER PROP. 27, OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS WIN—BUT CALIFORNIANS LOSE The out-of-state online gambling corporations wrote Prop. 27 to benefit themselves. Prop. 27 would give these corporations near total control over online sports wagering. Ninety percent (90%) of the profits would end up in the pockets of out-of-state corporations without creating real jobs or investments in our state. Not a single dime would fund state priorities like public schools, firefighting or even problem gambling prevention programs. PROP. 27 IS NOT A "SOLUTION" TO HOMELESSNESS California has spent over $30 Billion to address homelessness in the last 5 years, but things have only gotten worse. A recent report by the independent State Auditor said California’s spending on homelessness is "disjointed" and "has not fulfilled its most critical responsibilities." Rather than legalize this massive expansion of online gambling, we should more effectively manage the billions the state is already spending as well as any new funding needed in the future. PROP. 27 IS FULL OF LOOPHOLES THAT SHORTCHANGE CALIFORNIA Prop. 27 caps revenues going to homelessness programs at just pennies on the dollar of what the online gambling corporations will make. Buried in Prop. 27 is a "promotional bets" loophole. States that allow this same loophole have seen revenues fall far below what was promised. The big gaming corporations also say they will pay a licensing fee. In reality, the corporations can reduce their tax one dollar for every dollar they pay in licensing fees. More money for them; less money for the homeless. PROP. 27 EXPOSES KIDS TO ONLINE AND PROBLEM GAMBLING. Prop. 27 would legalize the largest expansion of gambling in California history—but it has NO IN-PERSON AGE VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT to prevent minors from gambling. Studies show that online and mobile gambling are especially attractive to youth and those prone to compulsive gambling. CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES STRONGLY OPPOSE PROP. 27 "Prop. 27 is a direct attack on tribal gaming rights and self-reliance. In fact, it even prohibits online sports wagering on tribal lands. Prop. 27 jeopardizes vital funding tribes use to provide housing, healthcare, firefighting services, education and other services for our communities."—Lynn Valbuena, Chairperson, Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations PLEASE JOIN INDIAN TRIBES, PARENTS, TEACHERS, PUBLIC SAFETY, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HOMELESSNESS ADVOCATES: NO ON 27! • Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations • More than 50 California Indian tribes • NAACP California • California League of United Latin American Citizens • California District Attorneys Association • CalAsian Chamber of Commerce • Goodwill Southern California • Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of CA NO ON PROP. 27 --- Lynn Valbuena, Chairperson, Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations; Sara Dutschke Setshwaelo, Chairperson, Ione Band of Miwok Indians; and Steven Pinckney, Business Administrator, Salvation Army of San Bernardino

Campaign advertisements

The following videos were released by Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming and Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming:

Title: "NO on Prop 27

Title: "STOP the Corporate Online Gambling Proposition

Title: "Response"

Title: "STOP the Corporate Online Gambling Proposition

Polls

See also: 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 27, Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund 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%	26%	67%	8%
	Question: "Proposition 27 is called Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. It allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. It directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, and nonparticipating tribes. The fiscal impact is 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. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 27?"

Public Policy Institute of California	9/22/2022-9/27/2022	6,939 LV	± 2.5%	27%	53%	20%
	Question: "PROPOSITION 27: ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS. 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. If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 27?"

Public Policy Institute of California	9/2/2022-9/11/2022	1,060 LV	± 5.4%	34%	54%	12%
	Question: "Proposition 27 is called Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. It allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. It directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, and nonparticipating tribes. The fiscal impact is 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. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 27?"

FM3 Research	7/30/2022-8/1/2022	900 LV	± 3.5%	33%	58%	9%
	Question: "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 eaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually."

FM3 Research	4/6/2022-4/13/2022	1094 LV	± 3.1%	36%	53%	10%
	Question: "Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them. Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on Indian lands. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues and licensing fees. Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to: 85% to homelessness programs; 15% to nonparticipating tribes. Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering."

David Binder Research	3/29/2022-4/4/2022	1,600 RV	± 2.5%	59%	28%	13%
	Question: "Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years and older. Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them. Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on Indian lands. Imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues and licensing fees. Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to: 85% to homelessness programs; 15% to nonparticipating tribes. Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering."

University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies	2/3/2022-2/10/2022	4,477 RV	± 3.0%	45%	33%	22%
	Question: "Various groups have proposed allowing sports betting in California, either online or in places such as in Indian casinos, racetracks, and other gaming venues, and have the state tax a portion of the proceeds. If you were voting on a constitutional amendment to allow sports betting in California would you be inclined to vote Yes or No?"

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.

Yes on 27 - Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support, a political action committee, was registered to support the ballot initiative. The PAC raised $169.1 million.

No on 27 - Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming and Yes on 26, No on 27 - Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming were registered to oppose the ballot initiative. The committees reported $249.3 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$168,231,089.48	$887,132.54	$169,118,222.02	$163,336,852.24	$164,223,984.78
Oppose	$248,167,685.00	$1,167,477.97	$249,335,162.97	$237,836,320.47	$239,003,798.44
Total	$416,398,774.48	$2,054,610.51	$418,453,384.99	$401,173,172.71	$403,227,783.22

Support

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

Committees in support of Proposition 27
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 27 - Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support	$168,231,089.48	$887,132.54	$169,118,222.02	$163,336,852.24	$164,223,984.78
Total	$168,231,089.48	$887,132.54	$169,118,222.02	$163,336,852.24	$164,223,984.78

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Betfair Interactive US LLC (Fanduel Sportsbook)	$35,000,000.00	$10,448.44	$35,010,448.44
Crown Gaming, Inc. (Draftkings)	$33,224,666.00	$879,384.10	$34,104,050.10
BetMGM LLC	$25,000,000.00	$0.00	$25,000,000.00
FBG Enterprises LLC	$25,000,000.00	$0.00	$25,000,000.00
Penn National Gaming, Inc.	$25,000,000.00	$0.00	$25,000,000.00

Opposition

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

Committees in opposition to Proposition 27
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
No on 27 - Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming	$116,917,060.00	$148,522.18	$117,065,582.18	$111,261,895.60	$111,410,417.78
Total	$248,167,685.00	$1,167,477.97	$249,335,162.97	$237,836,320.47	$239,003,798.44

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians	$103,056,060.00	$73,247.52	$103,129,307.52
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

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 editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure.

Opposition

• Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "It would be the largest expansion of gambling in state history and turn cellphones, laptops, tablets, computers, and video game consoles into gambling devices. This is especially troubling for youth and those prone to excessive gambling. It will also hurt the Indian tribes that have casinos on tribal lands. ... Vote NO on Prop 27."
• The Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Voters should also oppose Proposition 27, which would allow tribes to join with large, established, out-of-state internet gambling companies to provide online wagering on sporting events — and block out small competitors."
• 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: "As usual, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, supporters designed it so that only large gaming companies can control the action. Most other states that allow online sports betting impose relatively modest licensing fees, whereas this measure requires a whopping $100 million fee for a license – plus $10 million each time it is renewed. The firms would pay 10 percent of gross proceeds to the state. ... We urge a 'no' vote on Proposition 27 with the hopes that backers of online betting come back with something more reasonable."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Proposition 27, with major funding by giant U.S. betting platforms DraftKings and FanDuel, would allow sports betting online on sites run by California tribes and partnering companies, with a 10 percent state tax on wagers. Although small slices of revenue would go to fund homelessness programs and tribes with no stake in online betting, the measure is best seen as an effort by out-of-state corporations to manipulate direct democracy to super-size profits. ... 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: "Of the pair, Prop. 27 is the more repugnant. It would dramatically expand the opportunities for and accessibility of gambling, and its attendant ills, to the benefit of big online profiteers. Meanwhile, it would generally undermine tribal control of gambling, which provides a small measure of recompense for a long history of atrocities against the first Americans. 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 2021, 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 an initiated constitutional amendment 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 initiated constitutional amendments 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.

Initiative #21-0017

John J. Moffatt and Kurt Oneto filed the ballot initiative on August 31, 2021. The Attorney General of California issued ballot language for the initiative on November 4, 2021, allowing a signature drive to begin. Signatures were due on May 3, 2022. Proponents reported collecting 25% of the required signatures (249,285) on January 24, 2022.

On May 2, 2022, the campaign announced that they had submitted 1.6 million signatures for verification.

On June 27, 2022, the secretary of state announced that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. The final random sample count concluded that 1,142,317 of the 1,568,835 signatures submitted were valid.

Sponsors of the measure hired 2022 Campaigns Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $18,815,649.25 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 $18.87.

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Gambling on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to 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.

”

External links

• Proposition 27 Full text

Support

• Yes to Prop 27 campaign website
• Yes to Prop 27 Facebook page

Opposition

• No on Prop 27 campaign website
• No on Prop 27 Facebook page
• No on Prop 27 Twitter page