California’s problem is not a one tribe monopoly like it is in Florida. The state is home to lots and lots of tribes, making consensus more difficult. The latest sports betting proposals have not garnered much support, particularly when the specter of the 2022 stunning defeats of Propositions 26 and 27, still lingers.
On November 27, a trio of powerful tribes—the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Wilton Rancheria—opposed a current proposal offered by the commercial sector. They also accused the proposals as rip-offs of a 2021 proposition.
Reeve Collins, Kasey Thompson and Ryan Taylor Walz submitted their proposals in late October. If approved by voters, the proposals would bring California mobile wagering and the tribes in the state would maintain their empires.
The relationship between tribes and operators would not be partnerships but management services providers instead. In fact, few tribes are so opposed to bringing digital betting to the state through an initiative not of their own making that California Indian Country spent nearly $250 million to kill a proposal on the 2022 ballot brought by seven commercial operators, according to Sports Handle.
Thompson told Sports Handle that the proposals would help Indian Country even if they oppose it. The proposals were prepared with the Pala Band of Mission Indians, who later withdrew any support.
While the proposals claim they would remove illegal sportsbooks and turn them over to the tribes to run as regulated operations, the tribes say the latest offers do just the opposite: “enable the illegal multi-billion dollar offshore online sports betting industry to monetize and profit from their operations. The voters should be made aware of its true intent.”
Furthermore, the proposal would “exempt assets sold by illicit offshore online gaming operations to California Tribes” from the strict background checks and suitability requirements.
“This problematic new language advances the agenda of offshore online gaming operators to exploit and monetize their illicit assets,” tribal leaders wrote. “The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was enacted, in part, to shield the tribal gaming industry from organized crime and other corrupting influences.”
Thompson told Sports Handle that he fully supports licensing protocols in a regulatory environment.
“We agree with the original sponsors [of the 2021 proposal] that this is the ‘gold standard’ to go by.”
The Tribal Online & In-Person Sports Wagering Initiative serves as a good starting point for tribal leaders to consider. “Changes would be necessary as the legal landscape has changed since 2021, but any changes must continue to ensure the integrity of tribal gaming.”
The 2021 plan included input from BetMGM, DraftKings, FanDuel and PENN Entertainment who partnered with tribes, but it wasn’t enough for tribal leaders, and they opposed the result.
Thompson reiterated that without the full support of a majority of tribes, his group would not proceed.
Most tribal nations in California say little has changed among voter attitudes a year after the voting debacle.
FM3 Research conducted a poll earlier in November which agreed with the premise. Among 837 respondents who said they’ll vote in next year’s general election, only 30 percent leaned towards legalized online sports betting, slightly more than a year ago, according to Gambling.com.
Conversely, opposition ranged in the mid-60 percent in both surveys. Almost a majority of voters strongly objected to sports betting,
Pollsters prepared the survey with identical arguments for and against and only one third will definitely or likely vote in support. But 59 percent were adamant over their opposition.
“This survey finds California voters continue to oppose online and mobile sports wagering just as they did in November 2022, when Proposition 27 was overwhelmingly defeated,” FM3’s polling memo stated. “These survey results suggest voters in November 2024 are likely to overwhelmingly reject any ballot initiative that seeks to allow in-person and online sports wagering in the state.”
The crushing voter defeat of both propositions a year ago convinced many that putting another proposal on the table for 2024 made little sense. And has little support.
Thompson told the San Jose Mercury News earlier this month that supporters would spend $25 million to get the question on next year’s ballot, necessitating collecting at least 874,641 signatures from California registered voters in a roughly five-month window.
Supporters of two of the groups spearheading the efforts still have money in the bank should they go to bat in 2024.
