PD Endorsment: Props. 26 and 27 are a bad bet for California

Hundreds of millions of dollars already have been spent promoting and disparaging Proposition 26 and Proposition 27, the rival sports gambling initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot.

That should tell you that billions more are riding on the outcome.

Beyond that, the tsunami of advertising is mostly sowing confusion.

So let us make our recommendation short and to the point: Vote no on both Proposition 26 and Proposition 27.

For better or worse, California probably will fall in line with about 30 other states that have legalized sports betting since a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2018. But if we’re going to add wagers on professional and college sports to the lottery and casino gambling, the people who will profit from booking those bets should not be writing the rules to enrich themselves or punish the competition.

Proposition 26, sponsored by a coalition of Native American tribes, would allow on-site sports betting in tribal casinos and at four privately owned racetracks — Golden Gate Fields and three in Southern California. Tribes also could offer craps and roulette at their casinos for the first time.

While tossing a lifeline to one gambling rival, Proposition 26 creates a potential burden for another rival by opening a path for private citizens to sue card rooms for alleged violations of state gambling laws.

Proposition 27, sponsored by online gambling interests including FanDuel and DraftKings, would allow online sports betting through California tribes or private companies that partner with them. Not a sports fan? No worries. They also want to take your wagers on awards shows and video game competitions, right from your computer or smartphone.

To sweeten the pot, Proposition 27 promises a cut for tribes that don’t operate casinos, gambling addiction programs and to combat homelessness. It’s a time-tested strategy that often delivers more votes than money. Case in point: the lottery adds about a penny for every dollar the state spends on schools.

For voters who unequivocally oppose gambling, there was never a question.

But those who might be inclined to place a wager on their favorite team didn’t have to be stuck choosing between flawed initiatives written behind closed doors by people who stand to benefit if their DIY law is enacted.

State legislators have had four years to write rules that benefit California residents. There are standing committees with jurisdiction over gambling in the state Senate and the Assembly.

The Legislature was — and remains — the proper forum to write the rules, in public, addressing concerns such as gambling addiction, minors’ access to online gambling sites and whether California even needs additional gambling options.

If lawmakers had done their job, voters might not be left to guess whether legalized sports betting will provide the assistance for tribes and homeless people promised in TV ads, or if it will prove as illusory as tax windfalls from cannabis. If voters reject Proposition 26 and Proposition 27, lawmakers have a chance to get it right. If both initiatives pass, the one with the most votes takes precedence.

If either passes and proves to be flawed, a fix probably will require another election or a supermajority of the Legislature — which couldn’t settle on a sports gambling law in the first place.

If you ask us, this is a bad bet for California. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 26 and Proposition 27.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.