California tribes provide input on sports betting propositions

California voters will soon determine the fate of legalized sports betting in the Golden State. The Chico Enterprise-Record reached out to local tribes to receive input and analysis of the two propositions.

Proposition 26 would allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and racetracks with the requirement that racetracks and casinos make payments to the state, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The proposition also adds roulette gambling and dice games to tribal casinos and new ways to enforce certain state gambling laws.

Proposition 27 would allow online and mobile sports wagering to be offered by tribes and gambling companies that make deals with tribes, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The proposition would also require the entities to make certain payments to the state for regulatory costs and to address homelessness. Finally, the proposition also creates a new online sports betting regulatory unit and provides new ways to reduce illegal online sports betting, the office said.

Local tribes

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Chairman Andrew Alejandre said that the tribe which operates the Rolling Hills Casino in Corning opposes both Proposition 26 and Proposition 27.

Alejandre said that of the two sports betting propositions, Proposition 27 is the most crucial because it could open the door for out-of-state corporations to make deals with tribes.

“We feel like we need to protect that,” said Alejandre. “Allowing sports betting, even in a casino, will take a cut. It’s our job to protect that. By allowing these corporations to come in, it’s my opinion that it will hurt our sovereignty.”

Alejandre said that the cut of revenue earned from the casino would not just hurt the tribe, but the communities that benefit from the Paskenta Nomlaki Foundation.

Alejandre explained why Proposition 26 is also not supported by the tribe.

“Our issue with Proposition 26 is that we understand that it includes horse racing tracks,” said. “A lot of tribes don’t support horse tracks — none of which are on tribal lands. It’s my opinion that it opens the door to opportunities for off-reservation gaming and leaving tribal land part of what we’re trying to do is to leave gaming on tribal lands.”

Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California Vice Chair Alan Archuleta told this newspaper that Proposition 27 is opposed by the tribe that owns the Feather Falls Casino.

Archuleta said that linking devices to online betting could increase a child’s access to gambling, whereas gambling on tribal land is more regulated. Archuleta also said that is Proposition 27 moves forward, then out-of-state gambling companies have access to the California market.

“If you believe out of state corporations will help homeless in California, then vote yes, but I would ask myself what they already do for homeless now,” said Archuleta.

Archuleta did not comment on supporting or opposing Proposition 26.

The Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria declined to comment on Proposition 26 and 27. This newspaper reached out multiple times to the Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians but did not receive a response in time for publication.