Two years ago, state lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to forge a compromise to legalize sports betting, with one lawmaker likening the process to “trying to resolve peace in the Middle East”.

Now the voters are left to arbitration.

Proposition 26, backed by dozens of California tribes, would allow sports betting, but only in person at casinos on tribal lands, as well as at a handful of horse racing tracks — not online. It would also fulfill a pair of long-standing tribal goals by allowing tribes to sue card rooms and other venues for specific games they offer, instead of waiting for state investigators. act, while sanctioning dice games and roulette in tribal casinos (which are currently prohibited).

Profit tax revenues would primarily go to the state’s general fund.

Under the second measure – Proposition 27 – online gambling operators like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM, which seek to legalize online and mobile betting in California – would have to partner with an Indian tribe, with 85% of tax revenue earmarked for housing and statewide. homeless services.

Chris Grove, partner emeritus at Eilers and Krejcik Gaming, an Irvine-based research and advisory firm, described the election fight as “pretty close to existential territory for the major parties involved.”

Digital game operators need access to the California market to continue showing growth for investors, Grove said. And for tribal governments, the addition of craps and roulette is of similar significance.

The Proposition 26 campaign has raised the stakes by hitting the airwaves early to sell its message. In campaign materials through March, the tribal coalition said it spent $14.7 million in TV airtime and production costs — the vast majority on ads that attack the mobile gambling measure for having tried to “break the promise” between the state and the tribes.

“We’re laying the groundwork, if you will, for voters,” said Kathy Fairbanks, spokesperson for the Coalition for Safe, Responsible Gaming. “We think that [Proposition 26] is the most responsible approach to sports betting in California as it is highly regulated. You can make sure that the people who come to bet are 21 years or older. You can physically verify their identity, look at the person face-to-face.”

With significant campaign war chests on both sides of the sports betting debate, some political consultants believe the spending could top the current high water mark: the $224 million spent by campaigns supporting and opposing Proposition 22, the 2020 initiative that exempted companies such as Uber, Lyft, and Instacart from state labor laws.

“I just think we’re going to see record, record numbers on the amount of money being spent specifically on these ballot measures,” said Marva Diaz, political strategist and editor of the California Target Book. “What I don’t think people understand is that the [TV ad] the buying time has already started, so the time of October, September, August, they are already bought.”

“So is that normal? Not necessarily, but it’s smart,” Diaz said of the early spending. “If you’re a ballot measurement committee that has a very complicated problem, you’re going to use every moment to try to educate voters.”

The Proposition 27 campaign, meanwhile, has raised more than $100 million from commercial operators across the country.

“We have a long campaign ahead,” campaign spokesman Nathan Click said, noting that the TV and digital ads will roll out in the coming weeks.

In states that have legalized sports gambling, mobile betting has proven to be much more popular – and lucrative – than in-person betting. As a result, Proposition 27 is likely to bring significantly more tax revenue into state coffers than Proposition 26 would.

Analyzes by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office found that while state revenue from Prop. 26″ could reach the tens of millions of dollars a year“, the tax windfall of Prop. 27” could reach the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually.”

“Our initiative is the only one that will raise hundreds of millions of dollars each year that will go directly to help solve one of our state’s most desperate challenges,” Click said. “And that’s support for homelessness and mental health.”

The two parties’ spending blitz may not stop on Election Day either. Wallach, who testified about sports betting before the state legislature, said a legal showdown could ensue if the two measures are passed in November.

“The existence of a conflict … in the face of ballot initiatives will lead to disputes after Election Day,” he said.

Over the next four months, Wallach said, campaigns must make it clear to voters that the measures “are, in fact, mutually exclusive — it’s one or the other.”