California’s push to make online poker legal and controlled seems to be on hold until 2018 at the earliest. Legislation introduced in 2016 by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer and Adam Gray, Chair of the State Government Organization, faced opposition from legislators who believed it was overly limiting and wouldn’t meet its objectives.
A genuine eagerness to accomplish this exists, but it has been a sluggish and challenging endeavor. Jones-Sawyer has mentioned the necessity to “begin anew” and discover a method to gain everyone’s support. A major point of contention has been whether to permit large online poker entities like PokerStars to function in California. Despite an agreement reached last year between Native American groups and the horse racing sector (in which racetracks consented to relinquish online poker rights for $60 million per year), the legislation remains at a standstill.
Indigenous Californian communities have expressed resistance to PokerStars’ potential involvement in the state’s internet poker industry. They contend that the introduction of such a major competitor could adversely affect income for tribal gaming venues, many of which depend on gambling proceeds to support vital programs.
Friction heightened during a recent tribal gathering where Assemblyman Gray deemed it prudent to implement security measures. Additionally, he cautioned tribal delegates about the potential legal ramifications of intimidating elected authorities.
As discussions have reached a standstill, it appears legislators are willing to let the matter rest for now. Future dialogues are anticipated, but likely not before 2024.
Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer signaled that any proposed legislative sessions for the current year have been abandoned. In a statement, he remarked, “It’s fairly evident we won’t be presenting anything at this juncture.” He continued, “Examining the legislative schedule, we have alternative matters requiring attention, like infrastructure legislation. This is not an opportune period to attempt to advance a contentious measure. My sense is that if we utilize this interval to reconcile differences, we have a significantly improved likelihood of achieving something in the coming year.”