Proposition 26: Allows in-person roulette, dice games, sports wagering on tribal lands
Yes: A YES vote on this measure means that four racetracks could offer in-person sports betting. Racetracks would pay the state a share of sports bets made. Tribal casinos could offer in-person sports betting, roulette, and games played with dice (such as craps) if permitted by individual tribal gambling agreements with the state. Tribes would be required to support state sports betting regulatory costs at casinos. People and entities would have a new way to seek enforcement of certain state gambling laws.
No: A NO vote on this measure means: Sports betting would continue to be illegal in California. Tribal casinos would continue to be unable to offer roulette and games played with dice. No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
(Source: California's Office Voter Information Guide)
Background
Proposition 26 Is backed by Native American tribes who want sports betting in California, but only If the bets are made Inside their casinos. It allows federally recognized Native American tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on tribal lands, subject to compacts negotiated by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature.
Beginning in 2022, the proposition allows on-site sports wagering at only privately operated horse-racing tracks in four specified counties for persons 21 years or older. It imposes a 10 percent tax on sports-wagering profits at horse-racing tracks. It directs a portion of revenues to enforcement and problem-gambling programs.
It prohibits the marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21. It also authorizes private lawsuits to enforce other gambling laws.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
- Increased state revenues, potentially reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from payments made by facilities offering sports wagering and new civil penalties authorized by this measure. Some portion of these revenues would reflect a shift from other existing state and local revenues.
- Increased state regulatory costs, potentially reaching the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenue or reimbursements to the state.
- Increased state enforcement costs, not likely to exceed several million dollars annually, related to a new civil enforcement tool for enforcing certain gaming law.