You can help empower voters with the information they need when heading to the ballot box. Join the Ballotpedia Society.
California Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness, Housing, and Education Initiative (2022)
| California Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness, Housing, and Education Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2022 | |
| Topic Gambling | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The California Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness, Housing, and Education Initiative (#21-0009) was not on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022.
Overview
What would the ballot measure have changed?
The ballot initiative would have legalized sports betting in California. The ballot initiative would have allowed American Indian tribes, licensed racing associations, state-licensed gaming establishments, and professional sports team leagues to offer sports betting. These entities would have been allowed to offer online or mobile sports wagering.[1]
The ballot initiative would have taxed the gross gaming revenue from sports wagering at 25 percent. Revenue from the tax would have been deposited into a Sports Wagering Fund, and then, through legislation, be used to address issues related to homelessness, affordable housing, public education, and mental health. In addition to the 25 percent tax, a 1 percent tax would be levied in gross gaming revenue to fund problem gambling treatment.[1]
The ballot measure would have also legalized blackjack, card games, and tile games at licensed gambling establishments.[1]
Text of the measure
Ballot title
The ballot title would have been as follows:[2]
| “ |
Allows New Types of Gambling, Including Sports Wagering. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[3] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Allows licensed gambling establishments, such as card rooms, to conduct additional games that are played with cards or tiles. Legalizes in-person, online, and mobile sports wagering, which currently is prohibited, for persons 21 years or older. Imposes 15% tax and other fees on sports-wagering revenues; directs revenues first to enforcement and problem-gambling programs, and any remaining funds to public education, homelessness, affordable housing, and mental health programs. Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21.[3] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Increased state revenues, potentially reaching the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually, from sports wagering taxes and payments (such as licensing fees). Some portion of these revenues would reflect a shift from other existing state and local revenues. Increased state regulatory costs, potentially reaching the high tens of millions of dollars annually, that would be fully or partially offset by the increased revenue or payments required by gaming agreements between tribes and the state.[3] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[1]
Polls
The University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies conducted a poll of 4,477 California registered voters online in English and Spanish between February 3-10, 2022. The poll asked participants, "Initial opinions about a proposed statewide constitutional amendment to allow sports betting in California." The results are below.[4]
| California Legalize Sports Betting Initiative (2022) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Yes- approve | No- reject | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll 2/3/2022-2/10/2022 | 45% | 33% | 22% | +/-3 | 4,477 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Background
States with sports betting
As of September 1, 2022, sports betting was legal, or laws to legalize had been approved, in 36 states and D.C. The following map shows the status of sports betting in each state.[5]
Sports betting ballot measures
As of 2021, five of the states to legalize sports betting did so through a ballot measure. All of the ballot measures were approved by voters.
| State | Year | Measure | Type | 'Yes' Percent | 'No' Percent | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Jersey | 2011 | Public Question 1 | Legislative | 63.91% | 36.09% | 
|
| Arkansas | 2018 | Issue 4 | Initiative | 54.10% | 45.90% |
|
| Colorado | 2019 | Proposition DD | Legislative | 51.41% | 48.59% |
|
| Maryland | 2020 | Question 2 | Legislative | 67.07% | 32.93% |
|
| South Dakota | 2020 | Amendment B | Legislative | 58.47% | 41.53% |
|
2018 Supreme Court ruling on sports betting
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case, Murphy v. NCAA (originally Christie v. NCAA), regarding the legality of a law implementing New Jersey Public Question 1 (2011). On May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the federal government could not require states to prohibit sports betting, thereby overturning the federal ban on sports betting and allowing states to legalize sports betting.[6]
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) and Murphy v. NCAA
- See also: Murphy v. NCAA
Murphy v. NCAA (originally Christie v. NCAA) was a case about the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is based on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and dictates that Congress cannot commandeer state governments to enforce federal law. The question, in this case, was whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that prohibits states from authorizing sports gambling, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine.[7]
The United States Congress passed PASPA in 1992. The act prohibited any governmental entity, including states, from sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing, and/or authorizing by law any wagering scheme on amateur or professional team games. However, PASPA contained certain exemptions. One of those exemptions allowed New Jersey to enact a sports gambling scheme if the scheme were written into law within one year of PASPA's enactment. At that time, New Jersey declined to implement such a scheme, and the one-year exemption under PASPA expired.[7]
Then, in 2011, New Jersey voters approved an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution authorizing the legislature to legalize betting on the results of professional, college, and amateur sporting events.[7]
Based on the amendment, New Jersey passed the Sports Wagering Act of 2012. The law provided for regulated sports wagering in New Jersey's casinos and racetracks and established a state regulatory scheme for sports wagering in the state. Four professional sports leagues (the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (referred to together as the leagues) filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop enforcement of the New Jersey law, arguing that it violated PASPA. In response, New Jersey acknowledged that the law violated PASPA, but argued that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was therefore unconstitutional.[7]
Path to the ballot
Process in California
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.
The requirements to get initiated constitutional amendments certified for the 2022 ballot:
- Signatures: 997,139 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was 131 days before the general election, which was around June 30, 2022. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months and proponents are recommended to file signatures at least two months before the verification deadline.
Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.
Initiative #20-0009
Helen Fisicaro, Raul Peralez, and Tasha Cerda filed the ballot initiative on August 12, 2021.[8] The Attorney General of California issued ballot language for the initiative on October 18, 2021, allowing a signature drive to begin. Signatures were due on April 18, 2022.
The initiative did not submit the required number of valid signatures by the deadline.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 California Attorney General, "Initiative 21-0009," August 12, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed October 20, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, "Voters offer some but not overwhelming support for the idea of legalizing sports betting in California." February 23, 2022
- ↑ American Gaming, "Interactive Map: Sports Betting in the U.S.," accessed June 28, 2022
- ↑ USA Today, "Supreme Court strikes down ban on sports betting in victory for New Jersey," May 14, 2018
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, National Collegiate Athletic Association et al. v. Governor of the State of New Jersey et al. August 9, 2016
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiatives," accessed August 9, 2021
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
