This declaration is the opening statement of the official California voter guide for Proposition 27, one of several proposed amendments to the California Constitution. These propositions, also known as ballot initiatives, allow California citizens to have a direct impact on legislation, as governor approval is not required for these propositions to be featured on the ballot.
Prop 27 legalizes online sports gambling on non-tribal lands — nearly the entirety of California, thanks to a bloody history of displacing native populations. So far, over 20 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have passed similar legislation.
Prop 27 carries weight (especially in comparison to its counterpart, Prop 26, which legalizes aspects of in-person gambling) due to modern digitization — a new age of convenient access to the internet and the management of finances from apps on our phones. Under Prop 27, companies offering the bets would pay a fee to the state — essentially a tax on sports betting — which would go toward a state fund that supporters claim will be used to address housing and mental health treatment issues. Native Tribes would serve as intermediaries in the betting process; powerful, non-native gaming companies such as BetMGM, FanDuel, and DraftKings would only be able to offer sports betting if they struck a deal with a tribe first. Furthermore, a new division or state unit would be opened under the state justice department to regulate newly legalized online sports betting.
The website for supporters of this initiative, www.yestoprop27.com, claims that it “permanently funds solutions for California homelessness and mental health crises.” They also emphasize that by mediating the betting process, tribal sovereignty will be upheld. Supporters officially state that the tax on these online sports bets could reach up to $500 million. How do we know how much of the revenue generated will be spent on fixing societal issues? They claim that “Eighty-five percent (85%) of all revenues raised will be placed in a trust account to fund homelessness solutions and mental health priorities – such as housing and substance abuse treatment…Any state or local agency that misuses the funds can be compelled to return the misappropriated revenue. Fifteen percent (15%) of all revenue raised will be set aside to support Tribal communities.” They stress that federal authorities, such as auditors, would be necessary to ensure that the money is being spent honestly and describe how Prop 27 would also include strict restrictions that would prevent minors from participating in bets. They welcome federal oversight through the new branch of the justice department, the Attorney General, as well as these audits. Beyond these, no other arguments were found in favor.
Supporters of Proposition 27 include 3 California Tribes and various homelessness and mental health organizations. The Tribes that support it are the Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians, the Big Valley Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. However, they state that Prop 27 “benefits every single California tribe.” It is also supported by community organizations like the Bay Area Community Services, the Sacramento Regional Coalitions to End Homelessness, and the San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness, to name a few. Some political figures have also endorsed the initiative, including the mayors of Oakland, Long Beach, Fresno, and Sacramento.
The opposition expresses concern over Prop 27 because they believe it would promote uncontrolled gambling expansion — these sports betting apps can be downloaded on any device, allowing betting from virtually anywhere. This viewpoint has primarily resonated with parents, who stress that online betting could exacerbate youth activity on the internet and make them more vulnerable, as online betting can be five times more addictive than in-person betting.
Opposing Tribes express concern about the argument that the proposition generates hundreds of millions in revenue for a specific fund. They argue that directing the payment solely to the California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund “sidesteps the general fund,” which is responsible for funding public education, emergency response, and debt repayment. Moreover, they argue that the revenue will not be used to fund homelessness. Their official website, www.noon27.com, reveals claims that “90% of profits would go to out-of-state corporations,” given that major online betting corporations are based outside California. They further label supporters’ claims about providing permanent solutions to these crises as “deceptive”. In support of these claims, they point to the fact that California has spent more than $30 billion to address homelessness in the last five years, but things have only gotten worse — suggesting that revenue itself has not adequately addressed homelessness, and other, more effective measures are due.
Finally, Prop 27 may be detrimental to indigenous Tribes. While three tribes support Prop 27, more than fifty Californian Tribes oppose it. They claim that online sports betting would reduce business at tribal-owned casinos — the only places (other than race tracks) where gambling is legal. Greg Sarris, the Chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, elaborates in an interview with ABC7NEWS. “California Indians have worked so hard to create a business that helps us sustain ourselves…We don't want an outside group coming in and not only doing mobile sports betting, which is dangerous, but setting a precedent for other kinds of gambling in the state of California that would impinge on our business."
Among the tribal organizations that oppose Prop 27 are the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations, and the American Indian Movement West. Even more astonishing is the huge list of state and community partners — numerous and prominent social justice, education, labor, business, and political organizations, including the California Teachers Association (CTA), the African American & Latino Multicultural Alliance, and the American Indian Chamber of Commerce.
Note: Many of these organizations are based in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California’s two most populous cities, whose mayors did NOT endorse Prop 27. Even Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, spoke on this issue, stating, "Perhaps that initiative will provide a few dollars…I haven't given it a lot of thought, but it is not a homeless initiative. I know Angelenos can read between the lines and they know better.” Although he stated that he neither opposed nor supported Prop 27, he may have implied he opposed it.
And lastly, perhaps the most surprising and significant is the bipartisan opposition against the initiative — both the Democratic and Republican platforms have spoken out against Prop 27.