The state government would have been required to distribute the revenue as follows: (a) 15 percent to the California Department of Health for researching, developing, and implementing programs for problem gambling prevention and mental health and providing grants to local governments to address problem gambling and mental health (b) 15 percent to the Bureau of Gambling Control for enforcing and implementing sports wagering and other forms of gaming within the state and (c) 70 percent to the General Fund. The ballot measure would have enacted a tax of 10 percent on profits derived from sports betting at racetracks. Individuals would have been required to be 21 years of age to engage in legal sports betting.

The ballot measure would have defined sports betting as wagering on the results of professional, college, or amateur sport and athletic events, with the exception of high school sports and events featuring a California college team. Proposition 26 would have legalized sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos and licensed racetracks in California. Overview What would Proposition 26 have changed? 9.3.1 The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) and Murphy v.9.3 2018 Supreme Court ruling on sports betting.2.3 Where else was sports betting legal?.2.2 Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 26?.2.1 What would Proposition 26 have changed?.

Ca indian casino online