Two competing legislative measures seeking to officially legalize sports betting will be included on the November ballot of California.
In case Proposition 26, officially named the Tribal Sports Wagering Act, gets local voters’ approval, sports betting will be allowed at tribal casino venues and licensed racetracks across the state of California. Sports betting profits would be subject to a 10% tax.
As previously revealed, the revenue generated by the new form of gambling would be spent on various projects. The state’s general fund would receive 70% of the sports betting revenue, while the remaining 30% will be sliced in two, with mental health and problem gambling programs and policies of enforcement of sports betting would get 15% each. As explained by one of the main lobbyists for Proposition 26, Kathy Fairbanks, people will be required to show their IDs in order to prove they are old enough to place wagers on sports events.
The other legislative measure, called Proposition 27, seeks to make online sports betting legal. The online sports betting sector would be subject to a 10% tax that would be used to provide funding to non-gaming Indian tribes (15%) and mental health support for Californian residents who need such services (85%).
Court Lawsuit Could Be Looming over the Fate of Sports Betting In California
So far, three Native American nations in the state of California have publicly shared their approval of the corporate online sports betting measure, which has in part been sponsored by some of the largest US sportsbooks – DraftKings and FanDuel. A large number of other Indian tribes has provided their support for the in-person sports betting “tribal” measure.
The pursuit of both measures has triggered some questions about what will happen if both legislative initiatives pass the November ballot in the state. However, according to some market experts, the real question is whether the two measures conflict with each other. Some analysts have shared that the in-person and online sports betting initiatives do not conflict with each other because the two measures are seeking the legalization of two totally different types of sports betting services.
In addition, if both sports betting legalization bills are given the green light but the online initiative is given more votes, sports betting is set to become available both at casinos and online. However, if the “tribal” in-person betting initiative gets more votes on the ballot in November, the outcome may not be so clearly defined.
Some experts believe that local tribes could start legal action against each other if the two sports betting measures do conflict with each other. If this happens, the tribes would have to go to court to have the issue solved. Policy experts have warned that the lack of understanding of Californian voters could minimize the chances of any of the two bills becoming law.
