What’s next for sports betting in California?

Voters rejected Proposition 26 and Proposition 27, but the debate over sports betting in California is not over yet.

Welcome to Calmatters! Calmatters is the only nonprofit newsroom dedicated to issues that affect all Californians. Subscribe to Whatmatters for breaking news and commentary on the issues that matter most in the Golden State.

The long-running (and sometimes confusing) battle over sports betting, which has hoarded nearly $500 million in campaign funds and inundated Californians with ads, came to a close on Tuesday night.

The bottom line? Nothing changes.

Voters rejected two separate measures that would have legalized sports betting. California appears set to become the first state to block all sports betting on the ballot.

Proposition 26, proposed by about a dozen Native American tribes, would have allowed personal sports betting at tribal casinos and four privately-run racetracks. Of the votes counted as of today, about 30 percent supported the bill and about 70 percent opposed it.

Proposition 27, which would have allowed online sports betting, is set to suffer a historic defeat. With 83 percent opposed and only about 17 percent in favor, it is shaping up to be the worst flashpoint of any California initiative in the last 100 years.

The bill garnered support from several major gaming companies, including FanDuel, DraftKings and BetMGM, as well as support from three tribes, but strong opposition from more than 50 tribes and tribal organizations.

"Everybody knows this: The money they've spent and the results they've gotten is just monumental," said Victor Rocha, convention chair of the National Indian Gaming Association.

"I've never seen anything like this since I got into this industry. The money they've spent and the results they've gotten is just monumental."

CalMatters reached out to DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMG for interviews. All three companies provided campaign spokespeople by name.

"Our coalition knew passage on the 27th was an uphill climb. "Today's campaign made clear our determination for California to follow more than half the country in legalizing safe and responsible online sports betting.

1. Participate in Calmatters now, get information, amplify no n-profit news, and expand your knowledge throughout California.

How did this happen?

Before the campaign became ful l-fledged, California was not so enthusiastic about sports betting. A poll conducted in February by the Institute for Government Studies at the University of California Berkeley School asked if he asked if he would support potential voters whether they would support the constitutional amendment to legalize sports betting, and 45 % tilted to "agree". 33 % leaned to "opposition."

As the election campaign progressed, the approval rating declined and the opposition increased dramatically. By early November, 53 % of voters responded to sports betting, saying 64 % opposed electronic betting. In general, as the election approaches, the approval rating of initiatives tends to decrease.

California was exposed to advertising storms, but some of them were confused and had no touch. According to a poll at the University of California Berkeley, voters who saw a lot of these advertisements opposed them at a higher rate than voters they had or never seen at all.

The proposal itself was complicated and did not focus on sports betting. Personal gambling can add roulette and dice games for tribes, and electronic gambling focused on how to provide funds to resolve homeless issues.

For casinos, for the only tribe in California, losing online gambling means that the nationwide gambling company can provide gambling in California, and loses personal gambling. It was much more important than letting it. This is also reflected in how to use advertising expenses for each tribe, and one of the tribes that supports fac e-t o-face gambling and opposed online gambling, Vice President Jakob Mejae, vice president of Pechana Band of Indians. Say.

"As a matter of fact, we haven't made a big ad for (human measures)," said Mahiia. He said that electronic sports betting measures were "the biggest threat to this generation for Indian games."

Does anyone come out on top?

If you invest a large amount of money and the two measures are so decisive, who can be called the winner?

Card rooms (businesses in the state that provide limited types of card gambling games) are satisfied with the results. They opposed personal sports betting because it included a clause that allowed individuals to file a lawsuit to enforce the gambling law.

"I am grateful that voters have voted for the essence of the bill and voted accordingly," said Keith Sharp, a card room in Los Angeles County County County.

Tribes who have invested a lot to defeat the online sports and betting bills may also win. "This is a big victory," said Rocha of the National Indian Gaming Association.

Instead of simply stopping this, he said, "Let's beat it down to the ground." "And they have achieved it."

Research Company Eilers & Amp; AMP's policy director Becka Ghiden strengthens the tribal hands in future negotiations by showing the ability to prevent the tribes from opposing the defeat of the proposal No. 27 and the defeat of the stat e-owned betting company. He said that he would do it; Krejcik Gaming's policy director Becka Giden. Their attitude is that "nothing we don't recognize." So, please arrive at the table with the intention of listening to our story to the end. "And perhaps" Please arrive at the table with the intention of accepting the conditions we propose. "

What comes next?

There is nothing certain about the future of Sportsbetting in California. Just because you say "no" to a voter in a certain year, it doesn't prevent it from being on the next election or the next election. That is the case: California has passed the initiative to add regulations on the third dialysis clinic since 2018.

Gambling companies supporting online betting seem to stay away from California.

"California is facing tax revenue and the uncertainty in the future of the economy, and electronic sports betting can be an important solution to fill the shortage of future budgets," said the proposed Spokesman, a proposal of No. 27. I stated in a statement at night. < SPAN> Card Room (State Business, which provides limited types of card gaming games), is satisfied with the results. They opposed personal sports betting because it included a clause that allowed individuals to file a lawsuit to enforce the gambling law.

"I am grateful that voters have voted for the essence of the bill and voted accordingly," said Keith Sharp, a card room in Los Angeles County County County.

Tribes who have invested a lot to defeat the online sports and betting bills may also win. "This is a big victory," said Rocha of the National Indian Gaming Association.

2022 Election

Instead of simply stopping this, he said, "Let's beat it down to the ground." "And they have achieved it."

Research Company Eilers & Amp; AMP's policy director Becka Ghiden strengthens the tribal hands in future negotiations by showing the ability to prevent the tribes from opposing the defeat of the proposal No. 27 and the defeat of the stat e-owned betting company. He said that he would do it; Krejcik Gaming's policy director Becka Giden. Their attitude is that "nothing we don't recognize." So, please arrive at the table with the intention of listening to our story to the end. "And perhaps" Please arrive at the table with the intention of accepting the conditions we propose. "

Will there be another ballot measure?

There is nothing certain about the future of Sportsbetting in California. Just because you say "no" to a voter in a certain year, it doesn't prevent it from being on the next election or the next election. That is the case: California has passed the initiative to add regulations on the third dialysis clinic since 2018.

Gambling companies supporting online betting seem to stay away from California.

"California is facing tax revenue and the uncertainty in the future of the economy, and electronic sports betting can be an important solution to fill the shortage of future budgets," said the proposed Spokesman, a proposal of No. 27. I stated in a statement at night. Card rooms (businesses in the state that provide limited types of card gambling games) are satisfied with the results. They opposed personal sports betting because it included a clause that allowed individuals to file a lawsuit to enforce the gambling law.

more on propositions 26 and 27

Fact checking ads for California’s sports betting propositions

"I am grateful that voters have voted for the essence of the bill and voted accordingly," said Keith Sharp, a card room in Los Angeles County County County.

Tribes who have invested a lot to defeat the online sports and betting bills may also win. "This is a big victory," said Rocha of the National Indian Gaming Association.

California sports betting initiative backed by FanDuel, DraftKings would block small competitors

Instead of simply stopping this, he said, "Let's beat it down to the ground." "And they have achieved it."