California sports betting: Coalition of mayors voice opposition to Prop 27 ahead of November's ballot

With only just a few weeks left before November’s ballot, gaming interests in California are making their last moves in an effort to drive support for their respective sports wagering plans. State voters will be tasked to choose between Proposition 27 – a commercial gaming-backed plan that seeks to allow sports wagering on a mobile basis – and Proposition 26, a tribes-backed measure that would allow sports betting and new casino gaming only on a retail basis at California’s tribal casinos. That is if voters don’t decide to pass on both plans.

Even though both tribes and major gambling operators have admitted neither ballot measure may pass in November, that hasn’t stopped the opposing groups from gathering more support for their causes. On Thursday, supporters for Prop 26 announced that a coalition of California municipal leaders opposed to Prop 27 “continues to grow,” with a contingency of mayors and vice mayors adding their personal opposition to the commercial operators-backed proposal.

"The out-of-state corporations behind Prop 27 are misleading Californians," said San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, in a press statement shared by the group No on 27. "Read the fine print. Ninety percent of the sports betting revenue it generates leaves the state to benefit corporate shareholders. Don't be fooled, vote No on Prop 27."

"Prop 27 would turn every cell phone, laptop and tablet into a gambling device – increasing the risks of addiction among our most vulnerable communities and hurting those who can least afford it," added San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo. "A massive expansion of online and mobile gambling is the last thing California needs."

Their opposition to Prop 27 joins similar stances held by the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and both the Democratic and Republican Parties, which have all shared views against the plan. According to No on Prop 27, more than 30 mayors oppose the mobile sports wagering measure.

"Prop 27 is a scheme to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars away from California to out-of-state corporations," said Santa Ana Mayor Vicente Sarmiento. "And in the process, the measure strips California's Indian Tribes of their sovereign right to have the means to be self-reliant. It's a bad deal for local communities up and down the state and for California tribes. Vote No on 27."

According to recent independent polling data by UC-Berkeley and the LA Times, just 27% of CA voters support Proposition 27, despite operators of online sportsbooks having pumped tens of millions of dollars into their effort to legalize mobile wagering in the Golden State. But tribes have also poured vast amounts of money into the fight as well: Californians have been bombarded by competing ads from both groups in what has already become the nation’s most expensive ballot initiative campaign ever, at more than $400 million.

Still, despite the record-setting contributions, both efforts are likely to fail. Representatives of California tribes tackled the issue on a panel at G2E Las Vegas earlier this month. “It doesn’t look great for either proposition,” said James Siva, chairperson of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association. When two similar proposals show up on the ballot, history suggests that voters are inclined to be confused and vote “no” on both measures.

Commercial operators have also acknowledged this scenario. In a G2E keynote session featuring FanDuel CEO Amy Howe and DraftKings Founder and CEO Jason Robins, both recognized the mounting confusion over the initiatives, and said the tribes’ opposition to their betting plan could likely result in defeat.

DraftKings’ Robins said online sports betting in California probably won’t become legal this year. “More than likely this will pass in 2024,” he noted, according to Bloomberg, a take that Howe also agreed on. At the same time, Robins said it’s hard to imagine California without sports betting in the future, confident on an eventual legalization.