Measure on the ballot in the 2022 California General Election in California.
View your personalized ballot, check your voter registration, make a plan to vote, and research every name and measure on the ballot with BallotReady.
Get StartedAlso allows: sports wagering at certain horseracing tracks; private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws. Directs revenues to General Fund, problem-gambling programs, enforcement. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
A "yes" vote on this measure means four racetracks could offer in-person sports betting; racetracks would pay the state a share of sports bets made; tribal casinos could offer in-person sports betting, roulette, and games played with dice (such as craps) if permitted by individual tribal gambling agreements with the state; tribes would be required to support state sports betting regulatory costs at casinos; and people and entities would have a new way to seek enforcement of certain state gambling laws.
A "no" vote on this measure means sports betting would continue to be illegal in California; tribal casinos would continue to be unable to offer roulette and games played with dice; and no changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
"I've seen first-hand the transformative impacts tribal gaming has had on our people – providing funding for essential services like housing, healthcare, infrastructure and education. The in-person, Tribal Sports Wagering Act will allow Indian tribes to build on this legacy as the responsible stewards of gaming in California. We're proud to join with so many respected organizations as we make our case to the voters." - Anthony Roberts, Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Tribal Chairman, in support of Proposition 26 (Learn more)
"Prop 26 will exploit the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) by allowing tribal casinos to unfairly sue their competitors — forcing licensed card rooms out of business with frivolous lawsuits. It's essentially an attempt by Prop 26's sponsors to change the law to give themselves an unbalanced advantage over their card room competitors. As someone who believes businesses should compete in a free and fair market, Prop 26's cynical expansion of lawsuits is unacceptable." - Clint Oliver, CEO of the Central Valley Business Federation, in opposition to Proposition 26 (Learn more)
"Although Proposition 26 aligns with California voters' past support for allowing gambling on tribal land, the measure amounts to a toxic brew of industry interests designed not only to enrich the funders but also to push away their competitors. If California ever decides to embrace sports betting, it should be with a framework that is as evenhanded as possible, and not one that so blatantly picks winners and losers." - Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, in opposition to Proposition 26 (Learn more)
"Prop 26 will establish safeguards to ensure safe, responsible sports wagering by: • Limiting participation to adults • Prohibiting advertising to minors • Protecting against underage gambling by requiring individuals to be physically present to place bets, with ID and age verification checks Prop 26 strengthens enforcement against illegal gambling activities and provides resources to prevent and treat problem gambling." - YES on 26, in support of Proposition 26 (Learn more)
Also allows: sports wagering at certain horseracing tracks; private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws. Directs revenues to General Fund, problem-gambling programs, enforcement.
View your personalized ballot, check your voter registration, make a plan to vote, and research every name and measure on the ballot with BallotReady.