Capitol Briefs: Redistricting, cardrooms and shameless self promotion

Redistricting and a shameless plug No. 1: Lawmakers rushed a trio of bills through this week that will allow them to ask voters in November to approve new lines for Congressional districts that will heavily favor Democrats in the 2026 mid-terms. The move is an effort to blunt Texas Republicans’ efforts to redraw their own Congressional lines – at the direct behest of President Donald Trump – to help their party gain five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in those mid-terms. Last week, leading redistricting guru Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc. came on the Capitol Weekly podcast to talk about his role in creating those maps. In case you missed it, the show can be heard here.

And about the actual legislation: After much pontification on all sides, the Assembly and Senate approved ACA 8 (now designated as Proposition 50), AB 604 and SB 280. The triggering portion of all this – the part that says we’re only doing it if Texas does it – was stripped out of ACA 8 and will be finalized on Monday as AB 40.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measures on Thursday afternoon. The vote came one day after the California Supreme Court rejected a Republican effort to block the measures. Barring any further legal injunctions the proposal will go before voters on Nov. 4^th.

Preemption debate stalls tribes’ lawsuit against cardrooms: The next major date in the California gaming tribes’ suit against the cardrooms will be Oct. 10, when Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lauri Damrell will continue a hearing on the appropriateness of her courtroom as a venue for the thorny matter involving highly complex legal and gaming issues.

In a series of filings, the cardrooms challenged the tribes’ lawsuit on number of grounds, including whether the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, otherwise known as IGRA, preempts state law in this situation. In 2024, the Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 549 by former state Sen. Josh Newman, giving the state’s gaming tribes special legal standing to sue cardrooms, which work with supposedly separate entities known third-party proposition players or TPPPs to offer what’s known as “banked games” at their facilities.

Banked games, like Blackjack and Baccarat, pit gamblers against the house. Under Proposition 1A, approved by voters in March 2000, tribal casinos have the exclusive right to operate card games using house money in California. But cardrooms claim their partnerships with TPPPs creates a legal workaround allowing them to offer banked games.

TPPP employees volunteer to act as the house or bank at every table where banked card games are played in a cardroom. Before a dealer deals a hand of Blackjack, he or she offers all the players the chance to serve as the house or bank for a hand or two. Most gamblers don’t have the funds to cover that kind of action, but TPPP employees do. So TPPP workers, who must wear badges to differentiate themselves from the employees in a cardroom, volunteer to play the role of the bank.

Cardrooms say that this arrangement legally allows them to offer popular and lucrative banked card games because they are not serving as the house or bank – the TPPP is. Tribal casinos, meanwhile, have long argued that the cardroom-TPPP system violates the law.  In years past, tribal casinos tried to sue cardrooms for offering banked games, but the issue was dismissed over a lack of standing by the tribes. As sovereign nations, judges have ruled, the tribes aren’t eligible to sue in courts.

SB 549 tried to address this dilemma by giving tribal casinos special standing to sue over this one, narrow issue. But the cardrooms, in turn, challenged whether Sacramento County Superior Court, which SB 549 specially said should be the venue for the case, is actually the appropriate jurisdiction, The cardrooms claim that the tribes’ complaints are preempted by IGRA, the federal law governing gaming on tribal lands. That would make a federal court, not a state one, the right venue for this case.

Judge Damrell held a hearing on Aug. 8 about this matter and other motions pending before the court. Prior to the hearing, on Aug. 7, she issued a tentative ruling, indicating that she was inclined to agree with the cardrooms that IGRA preempts state law in this situation. But following oral arguments by both sides, she decided not to enforce the tentative order and instead think over the matter more until at least the hearing in October. Damrell said she would alert the parties if she needs more information before then.

The action last week essentially means it’s an open question at the moment whether the tribes’ case, as currently filed and authorized under SB 549, can move forward. Of course, if the judge were to ultimately rule against them, the tribes would likely appeal, meaning even Damrell’s ruling wouldn’t be the final word on the matter.

But this does mean that an actual decision on the long-standing argument over cardrooms and banked games is, at best, delayed even more, pending first a sorting out of this preemption issue.

Shameless plug No. 2: The Top 100 is almost here! We are only days away from Capitol Weekly’s signature event, our annual list of the top 100 unelected power players in the Capitol ecosphere. Are you on the list? There is only one way to know – get your tickets now to the big reveal party, which will be held on Tuesday August 26^th at Sacramento’s renowned Sutter Club. It’s a great event with hosted food and drink, and since we are a 501c3 the cost is tax deductible. What a deal! See you there.