Four California cities that host and get a significant amount of funding from card clubs have launched a campaign against a measure sponsored by gaming tribes that would legalize sports betting—but would lock out card clubs.
The cities also object to the fact that the measure would add craps and roulette to the games tribal casinos would be able to offer—and that it would make it easier for tribes to sue card clubs over perceived violations of the law.
The Golden State is becoming a battleground for competing sports betting measures. Advertisements have started to air on radio, television and online either for or against the tribal measure, for or against the measure sponsored by out-of-state sports betting operators such as DraftKings and FanDuel.
The latest ads, by the card club host cities, includes the statement that calls the tribal measure: “the only sports betting measure being contemplated for the November 2022 ballot that harms local communities.” It claims that the measure’s changes to the Private Attorneys General Act would open card clubs to endless lawsuits by gaming tribes.
Marcel Rodarte, executive director of the California Contract Cities Association, commented that the measure, “exploits the Private Attorneys General Act, opening the floodgates for frivolous lawsuits that will harm city revenues that fund vital city services such as roads, schools, homelessness services, and fire protection.”
The Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming (the tribes’ organization), shot back, “The only card room casinos at risk of legal enforcement are those that repeatedly violate California gaming laws.”
City of Commerce Mayor Leonard Mendoza added, “During the pandemic, California cities that depend on the revenues generated through legal gaming at card rooms have seen the devastating impacts card room closures have had on municipal budgets and the vital services they fund.” He added, “Hundreds of millions of dollars in local revenues are on the line — money needed to invest in the safety and well-being of our residents.”
