On Friday, the No on 26 project, largely sponsored by California's card space owners, released a declaration revealing that "every major California newspaper" is opposed to the legislation sponsored by a broad coalition of native people.

The release consisted of excerpts of editorials from the following major news outlets:

Los Angeles Times
San Franciso Chronicle
San Diego Union-Tribune
Sacramento Bee
San Jose Mercury News

Plus a handful of other papers from across California that have actually asked voters to turn down Proposition 26, which would enable in-person legal sports wagering at tribal casinos and racetracks.

The bill is backed by a union of 51 native tribes looking for to retain their long history of control over video gaming in the state, which saw more than $200 million in TV ads assaulting the competing sportsbook legislation.

Naturally, much of these same newspapers have also been recommending their readers, in even more strict terms, to vote no on the online sportsbook-backed Prop 27 - the No on 27 announcement is merely the most recent in what has been a long summer of dueling attack advertisements ... which resulted in pushing away California voters completely.

California citizens shut off by advertisements on both sides

The total ad spend for and versus Props 26 and 27 has topped $500 million - a new record with respect to state legal procedures in the U.S. The cash was mainly lost, however, as Californians resented the saturation of TV projects where sportsbooks and native tribes were endlessly attacking each others' reliability.

The bitter legislative project has actually seen the sportsbooks fizzling by labeling Prop 27 as a "Homeless and Mental Health Solutions" expense - owing to funds that would be allocated to such initiatives from the 10% tax on operators' revenues - however citizens might well have felt insulted by a misleading marketing campaign that stopped working to discuss the primary intent of Prop 27 - to legalize online sports betting.

That was definitely the analysis advanced by many members of the No camp. Kendra Lewis, Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance, slammed operators' intentions in support of the No on 27 campaign.

"Prop 27 is a basically flawed measure that will make the homeless crisis worse in California," stated Lewis. "The truth that Prop 27's backers are utilizing this extremely genuine humanitarian crisis to sell their misleading online betting procedure is shameful."

A survey conducted by the L.A. Times and UC-Berkeley earlier this month exposed that citizens who reported seeing the dueling attack advertisements about Props 26 and 27 indicated they were much more inclined to reject both expenses, compared to those who prevented seeing any of the TV areas.

"I think it's the unfavorable ads that have kind of been turning citizens away," said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the UC-Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) poll. "People who haven't seen the ads have to do with equally divided, but people who've seen a great deal of ads are against it. So, the marketing is not helping."

Polls confirm voter frustration

The LA Times/UC-Berkley poll was one of two significant surveys that suggested the basic public's animus towards the sportsbook-sponsored expense.

In addition to that poll surmising that most likely citizens were extremely opposed to the sportsbook-sponsored legislature by a 53% to 27% margin, the October 4 survey likewise revealed that Proposition 26 only had 31% of likely voter favor.

The UC-Berkeley poll validated the findings of a September 15 poll performed by the Public Policy Institute of California that had most likely voters rejecting the sportsbooks' costs by an equally definitive margin (the survey did not voter viewpoint on Prop 26).

More recently, a SurveyUSA poll launched in the second week of October offered a smattering of intend to native people by revealing that the support for Prop 26 had actually enhanced - albeit the study brought a much smaller sized sample size than the PPIC and UC-Berkeley polls.

Tribes attracted broad coalition of groups, sportsbooks left on their own

From the very start, the native people were determined to play on enduring public compassion for their traditional control of retail gambling establishments and horse tracks, where legal video gaming might happen.

Over the course of the summertime, the No on 27 campaign saw 51 native people discover allies in the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), which represents all 58 counties in the state, the California League of Cities, both state Democratic and Republican celebrations and their top legal leaders, as well as the significant teachers' unions.

Even organizations geared towards assisting the homeless - Step Up, Goodwill Southerm California, and the San Bernadino Corps of The Salvation Army - signed up with the No project despite the fact that they would have ostensibly benefited from the sportsbooks' self-imposed income tax.

For the most part, it was the major sportsbooks (headlined by FanDuel, DraftKings, and BetMGM) that were left twisting in the wind from a general absence of support - only 3 native people in the state were ready to back Prop 27.

Big league Baseball announced it was backing Prop 27 in August, tossing the sportsbooks a lifeline ... and acknowledging the marketing benefit to the 5 pro baseball franchises running in California.

But that was basically the extent of operator assistance, apart from a couple of isolated homeless shelter groups and the mayors of the towns of Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, and Long Beach.

Most tellingly, California's significant homeless shelter operators were never ever on board with the sportsbooks' "homeless options" messaging. In a September 22 statement issued by the "No on 27" committee, serious doubts were cast on the sportsbooks' bona fides regarding homelessness.