Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Tribal Government Mobile and Retail Sports Betting Initiative (2024)
| California Tribal Government Mobile and Retail Sports Betting Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Gambling | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Amendment & Statute | Origin Citizens |
The California Tribal Government Mobile and Retail Sports Betting Initiative (#21-0039) was not on the ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute on November 5, 2024.
The ballot measure would have legalized and regulated online and in-person sports betting in California by federally recognized tribes.[1]
Measure design
- See also: Text of measure
Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the initiative.
Sports Betting Legalization: Constitutional authorization of online and in-person sports betting
As of 2022, California prohibited betting on certain contests between animals, excluding horse racing, and sporting events. In 2022, Indian tribes operated 76 casinos in California.[2]
Additional Gaming at Tribal Casinos: Authorizing roulette and games played with dice
Sports Betting Operation: Statutory requirements and regulations for sports betting
The law would have considered online sports betting played by individuals physically located within California but outside of Indian lands to be "offered, originated, accepted, and otherwise take place exclusively at the location of the servers ... at a tribal gaming facility." The law would have allowed Operator Tribes to contract with Registration Affiliate Tribes to perform player registration services and Spoke Tribes for marketing services for the Operator Tribe. The Operator Tribe would have been required to compensate the Registration Affiliate Tribe and the Spoke Tribe accordingly for the business provided by the tribes.[1]
In-person sports betting would have only been authorized through Model Form Sports Wagering Compact Agreements, a tribal-state compact, or a federal gaming regulation. The initiative would have required separate authorization for online sports betting.[1]
Sports Betting Funds: Creation of two new funds
For tribes operating sports betting under tribal-state compacts or federal gaming regulations, payments into the newly created funds would have only be required by the compact or other regulations.[1]
The funds in the TSW-RSTF would have been tribal revenues to be distributed to federally recognized tribes that either do not operate a casino or operates casinos with less than 350 slot machines. The funds in the CHMHF, after deducting regulatory costs, would have been allocated to address homelessness by the state legislature.[1]
Sports Betting Regulation: Department of Justice and California Gambling Control Commission oversight authority
Tribes that operate in-person or online sports betting through a Model Form Sports Wagering Compact Agreement would have had the primary authority to regulate sports betting. However, the state would have required sports betting vendors to be certified by the state and pay fees to cover regulatory costs.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Allows In-Person and Online Sports Wagering and Other New Types of Gambling. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.[5] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Legalizes in-person sports wagering, roulette, and dice games on tribal lands, and online sports wagering statewide, if operated by federally recognized Indian tribes under (1) compacts approved by Legislature, (2) the model compact approved by this measure, or (3) laws enacted by this measure and state regulations approved by tribal representatives. Sports wagering limited to persons 21 and older. Directs 15% of sports-wagering profits to nonparticipating tribes and 10% first to regulatory costs and then to homelessness/mental-health programs.[5] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Increased state revenues that could range from the tens of millions of dollars to the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on how the measure is implemented and legally interpreted. Some portion of these revenues would reflect a shift from other existing state and local revenues. Increased state regulatory costs, potentially in the low- to mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenue or reimbursements to the state.[5] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the ballot measure is below:[4]
Support
Californians for Community Safety, Equality and Reinvestment led the campaign in support of the initiative.[6]
Supporters
American Indian Tribes
Opposition
If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia identified one committee registered in support of the initiative: Californians for Community Safety, Equality and Reinvestment, Sponsored by Tribal Organizations. The committee reported receiving $12.5 million in contributions.[6]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $12,500,000.00 | $22,845.78 | $12,522,845.78 | $9,758,026.20 | $9,780,871.98 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $12,500,000.00 | $22,845.78 | $12,522,845.78 | $9,758,026.20 | $9,780,871.98 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[6]
| Committees in support of Tribal Government Mobile and Retail Sports Betting Initiative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Californians for Community Safety, Equality and Reinvestment | $12,500,000.00 | $22,845.78 | $12,522,845.78 | $9,758,026.20 | $9,780,871.98 |
| Total | $12,500,000.00 | $22,845.78 | $12,522,845.78 | $9,758,026.20 | $9,780,871.98 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.[6]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| San Manuel Band of Mission Indians | $10,000,000.00 | $22,845.78 | $10,022,845.78 |
| Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation California | $2,500,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,500,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
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.[7]
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% | 
|
| Arkansas | 2018 | Issue 4 | Initiative | 54.10% | 45.90% |
|
| Colorado | 2019 | Proposition DD | Legislative | 51.41% | 48.59% |
|
| Maryland | 2020 | Question 2 | Legislative | 67.07% | 32.93% |
|
| South Dakota | 2020 | Amendment B | Legislative | 58.47% | 41.53% |
|
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.[8]
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.[9]
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.[9]
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.[9]
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.[9]
Path to the ballot
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 the initiative certified for the 2024ballot:
- Signatures: 997,139 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for the initiative was July 11, 2022.
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 #21-0039
Bo Mazzetti, Jesus Tarango, Greg Sarris, and Kenneth R. Ramirez filed the ballot initiative on November 5, 2021. The initiative was cleared for signature gathering on January 11, 2022, with signatures due by July 11, 2022.[10]
On March 4, 2022, the sponsors of the initiative reported to the secretary of state that the campaign had collected at least 25% of the required number of signatures.[11]
On May 9, the campaign announced that they would target the 2024 ballot.[12]
On July 22, 2022, the secretary of state reported that the sponsors of the initiative had filed over 1.3 million signatures.[13]
On October 21, the secretary of state reported that the initiative did not qualify for the 2024 ballot because it did not meet the signature requirement. The signature verification process found that 964,762 of the 1,315,482 signatures submitted were valid.[14]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 California Attorney General, "Initiative 21-0039," November 5, 2021
- ↑ 500 Nations, "California Casinos | Updates 2022 California has 76 Indian Gaming Casinos," accessed April 19, 2022
- ↑ Legislative Analyst's Office, "Tribal Gaming Analysis," December 27, 2021
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed January 31, 2022
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Cal-Access, "Californians for Community Safety, Equality and Reinvestment, Sponsored by Tribal Organizations," March 28, 2022
- ↑ American Gaming, "Interactive Map: Sports Betting in the U.S.," accessed June 28, 2022
- ↑ USA Today, "Supreme Court strikes down ban on sports betting in victory for New Jersey," May 14, 2018
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, National Collegiate Athletic Association et al. v. Governor of the State of New Jersey et al. August 9, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Initiatives," accessed January 18, 2022
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "25% Signature Threshold Certification for Initiative No. 21-0039- Amendment No. 1," accessed March 14, 2022
- ↑ PlayCA, "Tribal Online Sports Betting Initiative Will Not Go For 2022 Ballot," May 9, 2022
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Random Count," accessed July 25, 2022
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Signature verification," accessed October 24, 2022
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
