"it's" not in the constitution. What exactly do you mean by "it"?

it is in the constitution right after the first t

Those of you who are new to the Pig4Bill experience might think he’s trolling, but he actually is this willfully obtuse.

As a lawyer who formerly did a fair amount of federal appellate work and currently represent gaming clients in the US and licensed sports-betting operators overseas in regulatory matters, I can assure you that what Pig may or may not believe is of no consequence on this issue.

The Supreme Court, in a lengthy opinion on constitutional law and, incidentally on sports betting but with more broad implications, was as clear and express as could be in stating the opposite of Pig's claim re Congress ability to regulate sports betting directly.

You guys are messing with my enjoyment of this thread. I wanted piggy to give an ignorant reply that I could laugh at. I am concerned that you guys have scared him away from responding.

You seem to be well versed in this subject. How could the SCOTUS vote go down 6-3? Notwithstanding Ginsburg's claim that the law could have been "salvaged", this seems to me to be a slam dunk overturn.

This is just another way for politicians to get in the pockets of big Vegas casinos, Sheldon will be paying off million like when Florida tried to get full casino gambling. Rubio will get rich. His vote is always for sale to the highest bidder.

CA is in a weird situation at the moment re: sports betting. For those tribal nations who had the foresight to put sports betting as a contingency into their compacts with the state, it appears to be full speed ahead. For the other tribes, they will probably be left in the dust.

For non-tribal entities such as racetracks, card clubs, and internet sites (e.g. Draft Kings), their future may rest on the success of a state constitutional amendment to permit sports betting state-wide. That will require 2/3 voters approval. Time is running out to get it on this November's ballot. One can expect a fight over the amendment between those entities and tribal nations, similar to what happened years ago when there was a state proposition to allow slot machines state-wide (the proposition lost).

IANAL but I do live in California, and my understanding is that what doesn't happen by initiative process can happen by legislature; it's basically either/or. So even if they don't get it on the ballot, they could pass a law in Sacramento.

But aside from that, why would an initiative require 2/3 here and not the standard majority?

I think he's confused. It takes 2/3 of the legislature to send it to the ballot but only 1/2 of the voters to ratify it. If you skip the legislature, all you need is 1/2 of the voters.

It's arguably way too EASY to change the Constitution in CA.

Right, voters must approve 50%+1.

To be clear you need signatures of at least 8% of the most recent vote count for governor to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Signatures may be collected for a period of 180 days. Once certified the measure is presented at the next general election no less than 131 days after certification, or in this year's case June 27.

Unless Congress does something it almost never does and acts amazingly quickly the Genie will be so far out of the bottle with states legalising sports betting that it ain't ever going back in.

I think the increased excitement over sports betting would probably end up helping Vegas overall.

Might be a dead issue here in PA. $10 Million up front fee and a 37% tax after that. I'm not sure a book can make much of a profit with costs like that.

6 - 3 puts one in the win column.

I'll be honest, I did not think this was a slam dunk.

There will be shots fired in all directions in California, worse than with online poker.

Do you know if any tribes actually put "sportsbetting" into their compacts ?

That would be interesting but open to challenge as sports-betting does not seem to fall within Class II gaming permitted under the IGRA as a compact topic.

Also, there is no provision for online/mobile betting off the Res.

NY Times had a good article on the subject, worth a read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/s...n-casinos.html

In a nutshell:

Indian casinos in various states (article is primarily about CA, CT and MS) believe that they have exclusivity over sports betting in their compacts, for various legal reasons that change by state and tribe. Those would have to be ironed out and possibly litigated, since the language can be up to interpretation.

In CA, allowing sports betting at all would also require a change to the state constitution so it is more onerous than normal legislation- would have to pass the legislature by 2/3, signed by governor and then go on the ballot (and there's pretty much no chance this all happens in a month, which would be the deadline to get it on November's ballot).