A Guide to California’s 2022 Propositions: Prop 26 and 27
As the midterm elections approach, voters have been bombarded by advertising campaigns and contradictory information regarding the propositions that are on California’s ballot this election. The arguments made by different sides are often confusing, and it can make it difficult for voters to know which side to trust.
Of the seven propositions on the ballot this year, Props 26 and 27 have become the most debated measures on the ballot. Advertisements for both sides are everywhere, and they tend to make opposite claims.
In order to clear up some confusion surrounding the two ballot measures, here is a breakdown of the two propositions: what arguments are being made from both sides, who is supporting those arguments, and what the proposition actually says.
Prop 26
A “yes” vote on Prop 26 would legalize sports betting on tribal lands, tax 10% of sports betting that comes from racetracks, and would allow tribal casinos to offer roulette and dice games.
The campaign in support of Prop 26 is led by the Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming, along with the Peace and Freedom Party of California, 24 different tribes, and other organizations and unions, including the California Nations Indian Gaming Association. Arguments in favor of Prop 26 emphasize the importance of this measure for California’s tribes, as well as the regulation of sports betting that will go into effect as a result of this proposition.
The opposition is led by the group Taxpayers Against Special Interest Monopolies with support from the Republican Party of California, 7 corporations–many of which are casinos–and a few other organizations and unions. Arguments against Prop 26 claim that the measure would expand a monopoly on gaming held by tribal casinos and would do nothing to help communities.
So what would Prop 26 actually do?
The proposition is in response to a 2018 decision by the Supreme Court that removed federal bans on sports betting, instead allowing states to decide on the issue themselves. It acknowledges that illegal sports betting is already occurring without regulation or protection for consumers, and it states that the market for illegal sports betting will “continue to thrive and will continue to be an attractive option due to its untaxed, unregulated, and unlicensed nature.” Because of this, the proposition aims to amend that, regulating and taxing legal sports betting in order to prevent illegal sports betting, as well as provide revenue to fund programs relating to preventing gambling problems and other mental health issues, as well as programs for education and public safety.
The purpose of the measure, as outlined in the proposition itself, is to “regulate and tax sports wagering in California and strengthen California’s gambling regulations and safeguards,” which would include allowing sports betting at “highly regulated and safe facilities,” such as tribal casinos.
The proposition also aims to create strict regulations and consumer protections, many of which targeting the prevention of underage gambling. Sports betting would be allowed on professional, college, or amateur sports, but would be prohibited for high school sports and any sports in which a California college team participates–the proposition explains that this is protecting “students [...] colleges and universities, while permitting sports wagering on popular events such as the NCAA basketball tournament.” Additionally, the proposition would prohibit betting on illegal sports.
The proposition would also tax 10% of sports betting at racetracks in order to fund programs relating to the prevention of gambling problems and mental health, oversight on sports betting and other gaming, and the state’s existing fund for things relating to education and public safety. It also states that the enforcement of existing rules relating to gaming will be increased.
Prop 27
A “yes” vote on Prop 27 would legalize online sports betting, implementing a 10% tax on the profits that would be allocated to programs that address homelessness as well as tribes that would not participate in sports betting.
Support for Prop 27 is led by the group Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support, and is further supported by certain public officials, such as the mayors of Oakland and Sacramento; 3 different tribes, which are the Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; as well as the Major League Baseball Corporation. It is also worth noting that the donors who have contributed the most to this campaign are online betting companies. The main arguments in favor of Prop 27 cite the promise of support for the homeless and tribes that would come as a result of the measure.
The opposition for Prop 27 is led by the group Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming as well as the Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming. The latter is also leading the support for Prop 26. These two groups are joined by a variety of public officials, many of which are members of the state senate and assembly; both the California Democratic Party and the Republican Party of California, as well as the Peace and Freedom Party of California; 5 different tribes; and other organizations and unions. Many arguments against this measure cite the fact that the proposition would most benefit out of state gambling corporations. They also argue that the increased access to gambling will lead to more people developing gambling problems as well as other negative consequences. On their website, the Californians for Tribal Sovereignty and Safe Gaming states that "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."
But what does Prop 27 actually say?
Similarly to Prop 26, Prop 27 is also a response to the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that determined the issue of sports betting would be decided on by the states. It is also, like Prop 26, meant to address the issue of illegal sports betting that already exists.
Essentially, Prop 27 is very similar to Prop 26, with the main difference being that Prop 27 focuses specifically on online sports betting while Prop 26 only allows in-person sports betting. Like Prop 26, Prop 27 would implement a 10% tax on profits, with 15% of those taxes going to California’s non-gaming tribes and 85% of it going to programs that address homlessness and mental health support.
However, the debate surrounding Prop 27 focuses less on the measure itself and instead on the potential effects the proposition would have if it were passed. Prop 27 is intended to be a way to eliminate illegal sports betting, and it includes ways in which Californians can profit through financial assistance for the homeless and those seeking mental health support, as well as providing support for California’s non-gaming tribes. Yet the potential consequences of passing this measure cannot be ignored. Despite its intentions, the measure may still do harm, and many of the untaxed profits from this measure are likely to go out of state.
There are many issues that Prop 26 and 27 bring to voters’ attention. Should California legalize sports betting? Does the state need to legalize it both online and in-person, or should only one be available? And do the potential consequences of these measures outweigh the benefits that the propositions are meant to have? California voters must decide the answers to this for themselves.
SOURCES:
