Florida Sports Betting Initiative (2022)

Florida Sports Betting Initiative
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Gambling and Education
Status Not on the ballot
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

The Florida Sports Betting Initiative (Initiative #21-13) was not on the ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022.

Florida Education Champions faced an unofficial deadline to submit signatures on December 30. The campaign released a statement in which it said it was confident they had submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Florida county elections officials had 30 days to verify the signatures. The Florida Division of Elections showed that the campaign had submitted 514,874 valid signatures as of February 1, 2022. Florida Education Champions announced that the measure would not qualify, stating, "While pursuing our mission to add sports betting to the ballot we ran into some serious challenges, but most of all the COVID surge decimated our operations and ability to collect in-person signatures. .... We will be considering all options in the months ahead to ensure that Floridians have the opportunity to bring safe and legal sports betting to the state, along with hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support public education."

Overview

Measure design

The measure was designed to authorize sports betting at sports venues and pari-mutuel facilities, as well as online, in Florida. The Florida State Legislature would have needed to pass legislation to implement the constitutional amendment to provide for licensing, regulation, consumer protection, and taxation. Under the amendment, all online sports betting tax revenue would have been required to be dedicated to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund of the Department of Education.

Under the amendment, online sports betting could have been conducted by (a) Native American tribes and (b) entities that have existed for at least one year and that have conducted sports betting in at least 10 other states. Such entities could have begun conducting sports betting no later than eight months after the amendment was effective, if it had made the ballot and were approved.

Other entities or organizations could have conducted sports betting no sooner than 20 months after the amendment became effective if authorized by state law.

Gambling initiatives in Florida, 2022

Florida Voters in Charge sponsored an initiative concerning casino gaming expansion in Florida. To see campaign finance activity surrounding gambling-related initiatives targeting the 2022 ballot in Florida, click here.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The proposed title was as follows:

“

Creates new Section 33 to Article X. Sports and Event Betting.

”

Ballot summary

The proposed ballot summary was as follows:

“

Authorizes sports and event betting under Florida law at professional sports venues and pari-mutuel facilities and statewide via online sports betting platforms by entities authorized to conduct online sports betting, and by Native American tribes with a Florida gaming compact, only for persons age 21 years or older. Requires legislative action to regulate sports betting. Legislature may tax betting revenues, and all such taxes are required to supplement the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VI, Florida Constitution

The measure would have added a new section to Article IX of the Florida Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 33. Sports and Event Betting.

(a) This amendment authorizes sports and event betting under Florida law at professional sports venues and pari-mutuel facilities and statewide via online sports betting platforms for participation by persons age 21 years or older. Online sports and event betting may be conducted by entities and organizations that have been authorized to conduct online sports betting in at least 10 states for at least one calendar year, and by Native American tribes with a gaming compact with the State of Florida, and such entities and organizations may begin conducting online sports and event betting no later than 8 months after the effective date of this amendment. No sooner than 20 months after the effective date of this amendment, online sports and event betting may be conducted by other entities and organizations if authorized in accordance with general law. Entities and organizations conducting sports and event betting may use a brand of their choice and shall not be required to engage a market access partner. Persons may register for sports and event betting accounts and make deposits and withdrawals to such accounts remotely online.

(b) As used in this amendment, "sports and event betting" means placing and accepting bets or wagers on any sporting event or portion of a sporting event, or the individual performance or statistics of any athlete or participant in a sporting event, or any combination thereof, by any system or method of betting, including, but not limited to, single-game bets, teaser bets, parlays, over-under moneyline, pools, exchange wagering, in game wagering, in-play bets, proposition bets and straight bets. "Sports and event betting" as used herein does not include any other casino gambling specifically listed in Section 30(b), does not include any pari-mutuel wagering conducted pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2020), and does not include fantasy sports contests. As used herein, "sporting event" means: a professional, amateur, collegiate, Olympic or international sports or athletic event; a motor race event sanctioned by a motor racing governing entity; and any other competition, contest or event in accordance with implementing legislation or agency rule.

(c) The Legislature shall adopt legislation implementing this section. Such legislation shall authorize agency rules including provisions for licensure and regulation of sports and event betting and provisions for consumer protection and responsible betting. The Legislature may tax online sports and event betting revenues, and all such taxes are required to supplement the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund of the Department of Education.

Support

Florida Education Champions led the campaign in support of initiative.

Supporters

• FanDuel
• DraftKings

Arguments

• Florida Education Champions said, "Our amendment will allow more competition and enable Floridians to use their favorite sports betting platform. [It] will bring competitive sports betting to Florida and allow fans to use their favorite online sports betting platforms, such as DraftKings or FanDuel. That means no monopolies or limited options."

• Florida Education Champions spokesperson Christina Johnson said the amendment would "generate substantial revenue that can be directed to Florida’s public education system — without raising taxes.”

• Vice president for government affairs of FanDuel Cory Fox said, "It is our shared goal to have a safe, legal and regulated market for offering online sports betting in the Sunshine State. Once passed by Florida voters in November 2022, this initiative will ensure that the State of Florida shares in the sports wagering revenue that is currently going entirely to the offshore, illegal market."

Opposition

Opponents

• Standing up for Florida, Inc. sponsored by the Seminole Tribe of Florida
• Seminole Tribe of Florida
• No Casinos

Arguments

• Seminole Tribe spokesperson Gary Bitner said, "This is a political Hail Mary from out-of-state corporations trying to interfere with the business of the people of Florida. They couldn’t stop Florida’s new gaming compact, which passed by an overwhelming 88 percent ‘yes’ vote from Florida’s elected legislators and enjoys 3-to-1 support from Floridians and guarantees $2.5 billion in revenue sharing. The guarantee is the largest commitment by any gaming company in U.S. history."

• No Casinos said, "Florida voters overwhelmingly approved the Voter Control of Gambling Amendment in 2018. Now, gambling lobbyists are trying to convince your legislators to break the law, pass the largest gambling expansion in the state, and ignore your right to vote... Tallahassee politicians want to pass the largest expansion of gambling in Florida under the guise of a proposed gambling compact. This proposed gambling compact violates the Florida Constitution, Federal Law, and the will of 71% of Florida voters who put The People, not politicians, in control of gambling decisions with the passage of Amendment 3 in 2018."

• No Casinos President John Sowinski said, "One eternal truth is that expanding gambling always results in even more expanded gambling. We oppose the sports betting amendment announced today, and are confident Florida voters will reject it, should it get to the ballot."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through March 31, 2022.

Support

Florida Education Champions sponsored the initiative. The committee reported $41.09 million in contributions ($22.8 million from DraftKings, $14.48 million from FanDuel, and $4 million from Southwest Florida Enterprises) and $36.84 million in expenditures. Florida Education Champions paid $23,864,575 to Advanced Micro Targeting for petition gathering services.

Opposition

Standing up for Florida registered to oppose the initiative, as well as the casino gaming initiative, and reported contributions totaling $40 million. The Seminole Tribe of Florida gave $30 million to the committee. A different committee, Voters in Control, gave the $10 million (which it received from Seminole Gaming) to the Standing up for Florida committee. Standing up for Florida reported $39.74 million in expenditures.

Campaign finance activity surrounding 2022 Florida gambling initiatives

Updated April 11, 2022 (covering campaign finance activity through 3/31/2022):

Ballotpedia identified five committees registered to support and/or oppose gambling-related initiatives (#21-13 and #21-16) targeting the 2022 ballot in Florida. The following chart shows the committees, their total contributions and expenditures, and the donors. In total, the five committees reported receiving donations of $171.93 million.

Campaign finance activity surrounding Florida 2022 gambling initiatives:
Contributions	$171,932,902.05
Expenditures	$150,955,426.34

Campaign finance activity surrounding Florida 2022 gambling initiatives
Committee	Purpose	Total contributions	Total expenditures
Florida Education Champions	Support sports betting initiative (#21-13)	$41,093,027.00	$37,109,129.25
People Against Regulatory Legislation Addressing You (PARLAY)	Undetermined	$15,000,206.02	$206.02
Florida Voters in Charge	Support casino expansion initiative (#21-16)	$75,564,100.00	$74,105,796.34
Voters in Control	Undetermined	$5,435.26	$149.85
Standing up for Florida, Inc.	Oppose sports betting initiative (#21-13) and casino expansion initiative (#21-16)	$40,005,100.00	$39,740,144.88

Donors to committees surrounding Florida 2022 gambling initiatives
Donor	Committee	Amount
DraftKings	Florida Education Champions	$22,871,479.00
FanDuel	Florida Education Champions	$14,486,054.77
Southwest Florida Enterprises	Florida Education Champions	$4,000,000
West Flagler Associates, LTD (Magic City Casino)	People Against Regulatory Legislation Addressing You (PARLAY)	$15,000,206.02
Las Vegas Sands Corp	Florida Voters in Charge	$73,564,000.00
Seminole Tribe of Florida	Standing up for Florida	$30,005,000.00
Seminole Gaming	Voters in Control (then given by Voters in Control to Standing up for Florida)	$10,000,000.00
Poarch Creek Band of Indians	Florida Voters in Charge	$2,000,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

History of gambling in Florida, 1931-2018

Prior to 1931, gambling was outlawed in Florida. The following is a timeline of the evolution of gambling in Florida, including historical ballot measures concerning gambling in Florida.

• 1931: The Florida State Legislature passed a law to allow wagering on horse racing and dog racing, which Gov. Doyle Carlton (D) vetoed. Legislators voted to override the governor's veto, enacting the law on June 5, 1931.

• 1935: The state legalized slot machines and Jai alai.

• 1937: The state banned slot machines.

• 1970: Bingo was legalized in Florida.

• 1978: Florida voters rejected Amendment 9 by a vote of 71% to 29%. The initiative would have authorized privately owned casinos in certain areas of eastern Dade County and southern Broward County.

• 1979: the Seminole Tribe of Florida began operating a bingo hall in 1979, the first Indian tribe to do so.

• 1986: Florida voters rejected Amendment 2 by a vote of 68% to 32%, which was an initiative that would have authorized casino gambling in hotels with 500 or more rooms in counties that passed initiatives to allow it. The same year, Florida voters approved an Amendment 5 by a vote of 63.57% to 36.43%, thereby authorizing the state to operate a lottery. The state launched the Florida State Lottery in 1987.

• 1988: The United States Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), allowing tribes to establish casino gambling on tribal land. The act permitted states to form compacts with tribes to regulate Class III gaming, but not to regulate Class I and Class II gaming. Class I and Class II gaming were defined to include traditional tribal gaming with minimal prizes, bingo, and card games. Class III was defined to include all other games not considered Class I or Class II, such as roulette, craps, keno, slot machines, parimutuel wagering, and lotteries.

• 1991: The Seminole Tribe sued Gov. Lawton Chiles (D), arguing that the state government failed to negotiate in good faith a compact to allow the tribe to establish a Class III gaming. The case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in the state's favor, in 1996.

• 1994: Florida voters rejected Amendment 8 by a vote of 61% to 39%, which was an initiative that would have authorized a limited number of casinos in Broward, Dade, Duval, Escambia, Hillsborough, Lee, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties.

• 2004: Florida voters approve Amendment 4 by a vote of 50.83% to 49.17%, an initiative that allowed Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to decide whether to legalize slot machines in existing racing facilities. The Seminole Tribe of Florida was permitted to install slot machines at their facilities in Broward, Collier, and Hillsborough counties under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

• 2010: The Seminole Tribe of Florida entered into a gaming compact with Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, in which the tribe was given the exclusive right to operate slot machines outside of pari-mutuel facilities in Broward and Miami-Dade counties for a period of 20 years. Under the compact, the tribe was also given the exclusive right to operate banked card games outside of pari-mutuel facilities in the counties including blackjack and baccarat for a period of five years. In exchange for the exclusivity, the Tribe agreed to share revenue with the state as well as pay the state $5 million ($250,000 per year) as a donation to the Florida Council on Compulsive Gaming, and $5 million ($250,000 per year) as an Annual Oversight Assessment.

• 2018: Florida voters approved Amendment 3 by a vote of 71% to 29%, which was an initiative that gave voters the "exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida." Amendment 3 made the citizen initiative process "the exclusive method of authorizing casino gambling," meaning the Florida State Legislature is not permitted to authorize casino gambling through statute or through referring a constitutional amendment to the ballot. The amendment is not applicable to compacts between the state and Native American tribes under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that authorize gaming on tribal lands. The same year, voters approved Amendment 13 by a vote of 69% to 31%, a referral from the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, which prohibited wagering on live dog races, including greyhound races, in the state of Florida.

Seminole Tribe gaming compact (2021)

Florida entered into a gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe of Florida in April 2021 that gave the Tribe the exclusive ability to conduct sports betting in the state. Under the compact, the tribe may conduct sports betting and is required to share revenue with the state of Florida for the next 30 years, until 2051. The revenue sharing guarantee was set to be $2.5 billion over the first five years, with expected revenue for the state totaling $6 billion by 2030. Under the compact, sports betting was set to be available online and at pari-mutuel facilities to anyone in the state and would be "deemed at all times to be exclusively conducted by the tribe at its facilities" where the sportsbooks and servers are located. The compact was deemed approved and the Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs published it in the Federal Register on August 11, 2021.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) passed by the United States Congress in 1988 allowed tribes to establish casino gambling on tribal land and permitted states to form compacts with tribes to regulate gaming. The IGRA requires that any gaming activities provided for through gaming compacts between Indian tribes and state governments occur only on Indian lands, defined as "all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation." Florida's 2021 compact with the Seminole Tribe contains a severability clause, providing that, "[i]f at any time the Tribe is not legally permitted to offer Sports Betting to Patrons physically located in the State but not on Indian lands," then the rest of the compact would remain in effect, meaning sports betting would then be available only on tribal lands.

Arguments and opinions surrounding the 2021 gaming compact

Support:

• Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R): "The final approval of this historic gaming compact is a big deal for the State of Florida. This mutually-beneficial agreement will grow our economy, expand tourism and recreation and provide billions in new revenue to benefit Floridians. I again want to thank Seminole Tribe of Florida Chairman Marcellus Osceola Jr., Senate President Wilton Simpson and House Speaker Chris Sprowls for their part in getting this done for our great state.”

• Seminole Tribe of Florida Chairman Marcellus Osceola Jr.: "Today is a great day for the people of Florida, who will benefit not only from a $2.5 billion revenue sharing guarantee over five years, but also from statewide sports betting and new casino games that will roll out this fall and mean more jobs for Floridians and more money invested in this state."

• Bryan Newland, principal deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior for Indian Affairs: "After thorough review under IGRA, we have taken no action to approve or disapprove the Compact ... the Compact is considered to have been approved by operation of law to the extent that it complies with IGRA and existing Federal law." Newland also said, "IGRA should not be an impediment to tribes that seek to modernize their gaming offerings, and this jurisdictional agreement aligns with the policy goals of IGRA to promote tribal economic development while ensuring regulatory control of Indian gaming. The Department will not read restrictions into IGRA that do not exist."

Opposition:

• No Casinos President John Sowinski: "We are deeply disappointed that the Department of Interior took no action on the compact between the State of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. While this inaction means that it is deemed approved by the Department of Interior, it does not change the fact that this compact violates multiple Federal laws as well as the Florida Constitution. The 2018 constitutional mandate of 72% of Florida voters could not be clearer. Only Florida voters, not politicians in Tallahassee or Washington, have the power to expand gambling in Florida. This issue will have its day in both State and Federal Courts, where we are confident that this compact will be overturned."

Lawsuits surrounding the 2021 gaming compact

State Court (West Flagler Associates/Magic City Casino and Bonita Springs Poker Room):

On July 2, 2021, West Flagler Associates (Magic City Casino) and Bonita Springs Poker Room filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Tallahassee Division against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) alleging that the compact would illegally allow online sports betting from any location in the state. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs wrote, "'Deeming' the bet to have been placed on Indian lands because the servers are located there contradicts decades of well-established precedent interpreting applicable federal law. Contrary to the legal fiction created by the 2021 Compact and Implementing Law, a bet is placed both where the bettor and the casino are each located."

On October 18, 2021, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor dismissed the lawsuit, writing, "The Pari-mutuels lack standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary because their actions are not fairly traceable to any alleged harm. In addition, the requested declaratory and injunctive relief would provide no legal or practical redress to the Pari-mutuels’ injuries."

Federal Court (West Flagler Associates/Magic City Casino and Bonita Springs Poker Room):

The casinos filed a second lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Interior Secretary Debra Haaland and the U.S. Department of the Interior alleging that approval of the compact violates federal laws including bank wire laws "by unlawfully permitting internet and bank wire transmission of transactions and payments relating to sports betting between the Tribe’s reservations and the rest of Florida, where sports betting is otherwise illegal" and the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause by allowing the Seminole Tribe to conduct online sports gambling in Florida although it would be illegal for anyone else to do so. The Seminole Tribe of Florida filed a motion to intervene seeking dismissal of the case. The Tribe said, "The tribe is projected to realize profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars from sports betting over the life of the 2021 compact and those profits would be lost if the challenged provisions are invalidated." Arguments were heard on November 5, 2021. On November 22, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the compact violated the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act. Friedrich wrote, "Although the Compact ‘deem[s]’ all sports betting to occur at the location of the Tribe’s ‘sports book(s)’ and supporting servers, this Court cannot accept that fiction. When a federal statute authorizes an activity only at specific locations, parties may not evade that limitation by ‘deeming’ their activity to occur where it, as a factual matter, does not." The Seminole Tribe of Florida appealed the ruling.

Federal Court (No Casinos, Armando Codina, and Norman Braman):

No Casinos, Armando Codina, and Norman Braman filed a lawsuit on September 27, 2021, in United States District Court against Interior Secretary Debra Haaland and the U.S. Department of the Interior alleging that the compact violates federal law by authorizing sports betting to take place off of the reservation and violates the federal Wire Act “by authorizing gambling outside of Indian lands and by allowing the use of the Internet or interstate payment transmissions where sports betting is illegal.”

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 if they wish.

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.

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

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

The state process

In Florida, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election. Florida also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election be collected from at least half (14) of the state's 28 congressional districts. Signatures remain valid until February 1 of an even-numbered year. Signatures must be verified by February 1 of the general election year the initiative aims to appear on the ballot.

Proposed measures are reviewed by the state attorney general and state supreme court after proponents collect 25% of the required signatures across the state in each of one-half of the state's congressional districts (222,898 signatures for 2024 ballot measures). After these preliminary signatures have been collected, the secretary of state must submit the proposal to the Florida Attorney General and the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC). The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially invalid under the United States Constitution."

The requirements to get an initiative certified for the 2022 ballot:

• Signatures: 891,589 valid signatures
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was February 1, 2022. As election officials have 30 days to check signatures, petitions should be submitted at least one month before the verification deadline.

In Florida, proponents of an initiative file signatures with local elections supervisors, who are responsible for verifying signatures. Supervisors are permitted to use random sampling if the process can estimate the number of valid signatures with 99.5% accuracy. Enough signatures are considered valid if the random sample estimates that at least 115% of the required number of signatures are valid.

Details about the initiative

• The initiative was approved for circulation on June 23, 2021.
• Florida Education Champions faced an unofficial deadline to submit signatures on December 30. The campaign said they were confident they had submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Florida county elections officials had 30 days to verify the signatures. The Florida Division of Elections showed that the campaign had submitted 492,000 valid signatures as of January 29, 2022. Florida Education Champions announced that the measure would not qualify, stating, "While pursuing our mission to add sports betting to the ballot we ran into some serious challenges, but most of all the COVID surge decimated our operations and ability to collect in-person signatures. .... We will be considering all options in the months ahead to ensure that Floridians have the opportunity to bring safe and legal sports betting to the state, along with hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support public education."

Petition blocking

See also: Petition blocking

Petition blocking refers to organized efforts to prevent citizen-initiated measures or candidates from collecting sufficient signatures to meet ballot access requirements. Actions related to petition blocking can take various forms, including physical blockages, legal complaints and lawsuits, and administrative actions. Financial petition blocking occurs when opponents of a ballot measure use financial tactics, such as financial incentives for signature gatherers to forgo collection or retaining petition collection companies so that supporters cannot use them.

Matt Dixon, Florida Bureau Chief and senior reporter at Politico, reported on November 29, 2021, that the Seminole Tribe of Florida "is paying petition gathering firms to not work in Florida during the 2022 midterms as part of an effort to block rival proposed gaming constitutional amendments — a strategy that also includes running a separate informal signature gathering operation and hiring workers that interfere with other petition gatherers." Seminole spokesperson Gary Bitner said the tribe "assembled the best team of political consultants in the country [and is] currently engaged to oppose multiple outside interests that have initially invested a combined $60 million in PAC money to hire more than a thousand people to fight the Tribe’s success." Faten Alkhulifi, regional director at Advanced Micro Targeting, said, "I have never seen it this bad. I have seen blockers before, but not like this. It makes these canvassers fear for their safety. I’ve seen people about to sign, then they end up walking away, sometimes scared." Rasheida Smith, CEO of Dunton Consulting, the signature gathering company for the casino gaming expansion initiative, said 32 members of her signature gathering team took "buyouts from the Seminole-linked firms in the past two days alone." Smith said, "Over the last 72 hours there has really been a big uptick, they are starting to use canvassers to co-opt other canvassers. They are super aggressive. Have been following them, tracking them to their places of residence, which are hotels, standing outside. We literally had one smack a clipboard out of the canvasser's hands the other day."

Politico also reported that "As part of the effort, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has also been paying to circulate a separate petition that it claims supports the Seminole’s compact and new revenue for Florida. That effort, known as a plebiscite, is not tied to any specific measure being proposed for the 2022 ballot, but asks things like a signer’s name and address. The Seminole Tribe of Florida says the plebiscite is about 'education.' But supporters of the ballot measure argue it muddies the waters, making people think they have already signed a petition in support of one of the two ballot measures, when in reality they have signed a piece of paper not associated with any official campaign." Zachery Herrington, state director of Advanced Micro Targeting, said, "That’s the thing, when we come and ask someone to sign a petition saying it will increase funding for local schools, we hear them tell our gatherers that they have already signed. It’s totally confusing, as it’s designed to be."

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Gambling on the ballot
• Education on the ballot

Florida

• Florida ballot measures
• Florida ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Initiative 21-13 information
• Initiative 21-13 full text