Newspapers Across California Resoundingly Reject Proposition 26:

“...A Toxic brew of industry interests designed not only to enrich the funders but also to push away their competitors”

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (October 21, 2022) – The No on Proposition 26 (Prop 26) coalition today announced that every major California newspaper is opposed to Prop 26 – a gambling measure sponsored by special-interest tribal casinos that threatens local governments across California. Prop 26 is opposed by the Los Angeles Times, East Bay Times, Fresno Bee, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Lake County Record, Long Beach Press-Telegram, Los Angeles Daily News, Marin Independent Journal, Mercury News, Orange County Register, Pasadena Star News, Redlands Daily Facts, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Sacramento Bee, San Bernardino Sun, San Diego Union-Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, San Luis Obispo Tribune, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Torrance Daily Breeze and Whittier Daily News.

Here’s what some of California ‘s top newspapers are saying about Prop 26:

Los Angeles Times:
Endorsement: No on Propositions 26 and 27. Legalizing sports betting stacks the odds against Californians

“…the measure amounts to a toxic brew of industry interests designed not only to enrich the funders but also to push away their competitors. If California ever decides to embrace sports betting, it should be with a framework that is as evenhanded as possible, and not one that so blatantly picks winners and losers.”


San Diego Union Tribune:
Endorsement: Californians should vote no on badly flawed sports gambling Propositions 26 and 27

“… advocates have no good explanation for why the measure includes a hugely self-serving proviso that makes it easier for tribes to sue and punish rival card-room operators. And they barely respond to criticism the measure would prop up racetracks at a time when concerns about their treatment of horses have never been more intense.”


San Francisco Chronicle:
Endorsement: Props 26 and 27 don’t even belong on California’s ballot. Vote no

“We’re deeply concerned about Prop. 26’s ties to the horse racing industry. More than 80 race horses have died at Golden Gate Fields alone since 2018. Reforms have been slow to come, and Prop. 26 provides no new requirements for safety, despite mandating that live racing has to continue for these facilities to be eligible for sports betting.”


Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee & San Luis Obispo Tribune:
California Propositions 26, 27 fight over sports gambling. Here’s the best bet for voters

“… an overreaching attempt to litigate the tribes’ long-running and somewhat arcane dispute with urban card clubs … the divisions among the state’s tribes raise further doubts about the proposal. Gambling is a constitutional question in California, so sports betting has to go to the voters one way or another. This, however, is exactly the wrong way.”


Los Angeles Daily News, Long Beach Press-Telegram, Orange County Register, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Pasadena Star News, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Torrance Daily Breeze, Redlands Daily Facts, San Bernardino Sun, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, & Whittier Daily News:
Endorsement: Vote no on Proposition 26, a cynical effort to control sports betting in California

“… an audaciously cynical measure – an effort by tribes to give themselves virtual monopoly control of sports betting in what is likely to be the nation’s largest sports-betting market…”


San Jose Mercury News & East Bay Times:
Editorial: California doesn’t need more gambling, vote no on Props. 26, 27

“…It’s all about greed. California’s tribes have split their support between the two measures depending on which one they expect would provide the biggest payoff. Horserace tracks are similarly trying to fatten their profits…” 


Desert Sun:
Endorsement: No on Prop. 26 and Prop. 27. Both are bad bets, but for different reasons

“Another wrench in the works is small-print language buried in the proposition that… seems to be a tribal shot at their rival cardrooms. Cardrooms contend these nuisance lawsuits could tie them up in expensive legal battles and potentially put them out of business, costing jobs and tax revenues to local governments. Cities …depend on such revenue oppose the measure, as do some unions.”