New poll shows California sports betting initiatives falling on deaf ears

A broad-base of Californians are opposed to twin sports betting expansion legislative initiatives, according to new survey data from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS).

The survey, commissioned by newspaper the Los Angeles Times, which has previously voiced its own opposition to both initiatives, compiled the opinions of 6,939 likely California voters.

Of these, just 31% would support the tribal-backed proposition 26, which allows in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and racetracks, compared with 42% of survey participants who said they would oppose the ballot initiative.

The results were even worse for proposition 27, which would allow sports betting online, with just 27% of voters saying they would support the ballot, compared to more than half (53%) who said they would oppose it.

According to the LA Times, a combined $410m has been spent on advertising by the competing initiatives, which go to the polls on November 7. The spending has seen Californians deluged with TV, radio, and online ads, as well as both above and below the line marketing.

Wading into this, the IGS said that according to their data, a voter’s exposure to advertisements about the two initiatives “appears to be a factor” in the decline in support.

“Voters who say they have seen lots of ads about proposition 26 and 27 voted no by wide margins, while those who have seen little or no ads are about evenly divided,” it noted.

The data comes just eight months after a separate Berkeley Institute poll suggested there was some support for sports betting legalization in the Sunshine state, sentiments which seem to have diminished in the wake of the competing bids.

Of those surveyed, a majority of democrat and republican voters opposed proposition 27, but in respect of proposition 26, democrats were split, with 28% in support and more than half opposing the measure.

Proposition 26, or the Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative, allows for sports betting on tribal lands, subject to compacts ratified with the state.

It permits onsite sports betting at privately operated horseracing tracks over four counties for individuals aged 21 or over and imposes a 10% tax on profits made.

Proposition 27, the ballot initiative backed by a coalition of US sportsbook operators including DraftKings, BetMGM, and FanDuel, aims to expand online sports betting into the state.

Licenses would start at $100m, with tribal operators paying $10m, and a 10% tax would be payable. Money would be used to fund programs aimed at combatting homelessness and gambling-related harm.

In a statement accompanying the data, the IGS suggested that opposition to the two sports betting initiatives was “broad-based” across major subgroups of the likely voter base.

“Virtually all voter subgroups are lining up on the ‘No’ side on Prop 27. This includes democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals, men and women, whites and voters of color, as well as voters living in each of the state’s eight major regions,” the statement said.

According to the survey data, the only subgroup currently supporting proposition 27 is younger voters, especially those aged under 30, who are voting 44% yes to 33% no.

“While republicans and conservatives oppose Prop. 26 nearly two to one, democrats and independents are voting ‘no’ by narrower margins, and liberals are divided. ‘No’ voters outnumber ‘yes’ voters across most of the state’s regions and ethnic subgroups, although Asians and Inland Empire voters are about evenly divided,” the IGS explained.

“There is a gender gap in views about Prop. 26, with women opposed nearly two to one while men are divided. Age also plays a role, with voters under age 40 supporting the initiative while those aged 65 or older are opposed nearly three to one,” it added.

In comments reported by the LA Times, Berkeley IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo offered his opinion on the widespread opposition to the competing ballot bids.

“I think it’s the negative advertisements that have kind of been turning voters away,” DiCamillo said.

“People who haven’t seen the ads are about evenly divided, but people who’ve seen a lot of ads are against it. So, the advertising is not helping,” he added.