It’s rare for Democrats and Republicans agree on much of anything, but in California, sports betting is bringing them together in that both parties oppose it happening. A month after the California Democratic Party issued voter guidance to vote no on Prop 27 and that the party was neutral on Prop 26, the California GOP announced it does not endorse Prop 26 or Prop 27.
Meanwhile, the growing list of individuals opposing Prop 27 continue to run the political gamut. Democratic leaders Sen. Toni Atkins and Rep. Anthony Rendon joined Republican Assembly and Senate Minority Leaders Rep. James Gallagher and Sen. Scott Wilk.
We need to protect tribal sovereignty and gaming in California. Prop 27 threatens the current system, approved by voters, that allows tribes to use their lands to be self-reliant while also providing tremendous benefit to the communities they serve. Vote no on Prop 27,” Gallagher said
California GOP says it stands with tribes…sort of
In a statement to the No on 27 Group, Chairwoman of the California Republican Party Jessica Millan Patterson stated:
“Prop 27 breaks the promise made to California’s Native American tribes to grant them the sovereign right to operate gaming in California in order to improve the lives of their communities across the state. We stand with California tribes and oppose Prop 27.”
Despite that statement, the GOP in the state is not backing the tribal sports initiative, Prop 26, either. This could be less about sports betting and more about the perceived threat to California card rooms across the state. The language of Prop 26 extends beyond sports betting to include expansion of the types of games tribal casinos can offer on the gaming floor.
Both the California Black Chamber of Commerce and the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce came out against Prop 26 for these reasons. Animal rights groups are fighting against Prop 26 as well because of the involvement of state horse racing tracks.
The Prop 26 campaign also recently settled a lawsuit from the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). According to the suit, advertisements for Prop 26 indicated support for NAACP and a quotation attributed to the entire chapter when, in fact, it was the opinion of a single member. Moreover, it was a single opinion that stood in opposition to the group’s stance. Prop 26 supporters agreed to remove the misleading information.
