Prop 27

Prop 27

Ethel Thompson (11th), Reporter

In the upcoming election on November 8th, residents of California will be able to cast their votes on two different voting initiatives; prop 26, and prop 27. Of the two, prop 27 has brought up a lot of questions. Prop 27 allows for sports related bets to be placed online. There are a lot of conflicting opinions surrounding this proposition, as it raises concern regarding gambling addiction.

According to, online gambling is much more addictive than in person gambling. Online gambling is easily accessible, practically instant, and the lack of external factors makes it harder to make rational decisions. 

Another issue that extends from this proposition is the lack of safeguards when it comes to children having access to these gambling sites. Children already have a multitude of dangerous apps and websites at their fingertips; adding gambling to the mix only enhances this issue. 

While there are quite a few concerns regarding this proposition, there are also some upsides. According to, prop 27 mandates that disadvantaged non-gambling tribes receive 15% of all tax income. Not only this, but prop 27 mandates strict regulation of internet sports betting by the California Department of Justice and provides significant money for addiction treatment.

The main issue surrounding this proposition, is that there’s no real way to know if it will really be a good thing. There is a lot of contradicting evidence that makes it hard to know whether or not one should be in support of it. 

When asked the question: 

What have you heard about prop 27?

Mr. Montgomery, a Pitman High School history teacher said, 

“I’ve seen commercials on tv,  competitions between prop 27 and 26, and I’ve one my own research”

Do you think online sports gambling should be legalized?


What do you think some benefits could be?

“I can’t think of any”

What do you think one downside could be?

“Kids letting into it, the organized crime taking extra control of it, opening up a wide number of people to identity theft, promoting gambling addictions”

Both sides of the issue have reason to support their beliefs. It seems that for each point one side brings up, the other has a rebuttal, and vice versa. 

From a logical standpoint, it seems that the negatives out way the positives in this case, however, if tax revenue made from this proposition truly does go towards helping those in need, it’s hard to say whether or not it’s a good idea. 

Prop 27 raises a lot of reasonable questions. This proposition has the potential to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in free income to homeless Californians and other services. On the other hand, it also has the potential to encourage/create gambling addicts, give gambling access to children, and as gambling has such a large effect on people’s financial situations, might increase the amount of homelessness in California. 

Before voting this November, it’s clear how important it is to do your research. Making sure you’re aware of all the pros and cons surrounding a proposition is crucial to making a good decision. 


Sources to visit for more information: