California Poll Finds Even Split on Tribal Sports Betting as Prediction Markets Draw Voter Calls for Bans
Politico-Citrin poll shows **50%** California support for tribal in-person sports betting and **37%** for online, strongest among 30-44 males. Brennan Center finds prediction markets shift voter win estimates by **10-20** points yet **80%+** want regulation or bans. (48 words)
SCCG Take — Tribes hold modest voter opening for 2028 but must navigate influencer opposition; prediction operators face likely regulatory pushback from distorted election perceptions.
A Politico-Citrin Center poll finds California voters evenly split on in-person sports betting at tribal casinos while showing weaker backing for online options. A separate Brennan Center for Justice survey concludes that prediction markets sway voter views on elections despite broad skepticism and demands for tighter controls or prohibition.
The California survey of 1,149 registered voters and 213 policy influencers, conducted Oct. 9-16, showed 50% support for in-person betting at tribal casinos and 37% for online. Among voters, 17% were definitely in favor of retail betting and 33% probably in favor. Figures held nearly identical across party lines.
California Voter Attitudes Toward Sports Betting Legalization
Support peaked in the 30-44 age group at 55% for retail and 50% for online. Men backed tribal casino betting at 55% versus 45% for women, and online at 41% versus 34%. Policy influencers split at 46% each on in-person legalization but opposed online by 75%-22%.
Tribes plan a 2028 ballot initiative that may cover both retail and digital betting. Voters rejected a commercial-backed online initiative in 2022 by more than 80%.
Public Backlash Against Prediction Market Influence on Elections
The Brennan Center survey found that a candidate appearing favored on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket gains 10 to 20 percentage points in voters’ estimates of winning likelihood. This influence persists even though fewer than one in five voters view the markets as accurate and less than a third see them as representative of the public.
More than 80% of those surveyed want prediction markets more tightly regulated or banned outright, with 16% supporting a complete ban, 23% favoring bans on some types, and 48% calling for stronger regulation. The risk here is real: market odds appear to shape perceptions even among those who distrust them, according to the Brennan Center report.
These paired findings, as compiled by InGame, leave California tribes with a narrow but usable path for their initiative while flagging election wagering as a probable target for lawmakers seeking to curb outside influence.
Reporting: InGame
Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →