Gambling, data privacy advocates sue California, arguing COVID-19 interfered with campaigns

Initiative campaigns on sports betting and data privacy are suing California, arguing the state should modify deadlines to qualify for the ballot because the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with their ability to gather signatures.

The campaign to legalize sports betting argues that it should be given more time to collect signatures to qualify for the 2022 ballot.

The data privacy campaign argues that delays in signature gathering because of the pandemic caused the campaign to turn in signatures at the last moment, which may prevent the measure from qualifying for the November ballot.

Once the state gives a campaign the green light to collect signatures, it has 180 days to collect enough to qualify for the ballot. The gambling initiative was in the midst of its 180-day signature gathering period when Gov. Gavin Newsom issued his stay-at-home order to fight the coronavirus, forcing proponents to suspend their efforts.

The 180-day deadline “presents an impossible burden” during the stay-at-home order, the gambling campaign says in the lawsuit it filed against Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Tuesday. Enforcement of the rule would infringe on the campaign’s right under the California constitution to propose a new law by initiative, the lawsuit argues.

The measure, backed by Native American tribes, would allow sports betting, dice games and roulette at tribal casinos. It would also allow sports betting at horse racing tracks in four California counties beginning in 2022 and impose a 10 percent tax on profits.

The other campaign, which aims to put a data privacy initiative on the November 2020 ballot, says it turned in signatures to county elections offices on time, but that Riverside County did not report numbers to the Secretary of State’s office until shortly after the office had closed for the day. As a result, the Secretary of State’s office did not tell counties to begin their 30-day random sampling process, the official next step in the process, until the following day, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

Because counties are legally entitled to 30 days for random sampling, the campaign argues the one-day delay “may prove fatal to the people’s right to vote on the initiative this November” because the period will end the day after the June 25 deadline for measures to qualify for the ballot.

The privacy initiative would expand consumers’ rights to prevent businesses from sharing their data and limit them from using particularly sensitive information including location, race, genetics and private communications. The measure, spearheaded by San Francisco developer and privacy activist Alastair Mactaggart, would also allow consumers to correct inaccurate personal information held by private businesses and would establish a California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce consumer privacy laws.

Padilla spokesman Sam Mahood declined to comment and said the Secretary of State’s Office is reviewing the lawsuits.

This story was originally published June 10, 2020 at 4:55 PM with the headline "Gambling, data privacy advocates sue California, arguing COVID-19 interfered with campaigns."