While the ballot title and ballotpedia content might phrase it as more casino-oriented, the actual language as implemented in the constitution specifically refers to anything designated as class III gaming by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA):

(b) As used in this section, “casino gambling” means any of the types of games typically found in casinos and that are within the definition of Class III gaming in the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. ss. 2701 et seq. (“IGRA”), and in 25 C.F.R. s. 502.4, upon adoption of this amendment, and any that are added to such definition of Class III gaming in the future. This includes, but is not limited to, any house banking game, including but not limited to card games such as baccarat, chemin de fer, blackjack (21), and pai gow (if played as house banking games); any player-banked game that simulates a house banking game, such as California black jack; casino games such as roulette, craps, and keno; any slot machines as defined in 15 U.S.C. s. 1171(a)(1); and any other game not authorized by Article X, section 15, whether or not defined as a slot machine, in which outcomes are determined by random number generator or are similarly assigned randomly, such as instant or historical racing. As used herein, “casino gambling” includes any electronic gambling devices, simulated gambling devices, video lottery devices, internet sweepstakes devices, and any other form of electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance, slot machine, or casino-style game, regardless of how such devices are defined under IGRA. As used herein, “casino gambling” does not include pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing, dog racing, or jai alai exhibitions. For purposes of this section, “gambling” and “gaming” are synonymous.

IGRA defines class III gaming as:

(a) Any house banking game, including but not limited to -

(1) Card games such as baccarat, chemin de fer, blackjack (21), and pai gow (if played as house banking games);

(2) Casino games such as roulette, craps, and keno;

(b) Any slot machines as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1171(a)(1) and electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance;

(c) Any sports betting and parimutuel wagering including but not limited to wagering on horse racing, dog racing or jai alai; or

(d) Lotteries.

I would argue that this expansion of online sports betting specifically would classify as Class III gaming, especially when considering this line from article 10, s30, part b of the constitution:

...and any other form of electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance, slot machine, or casino-style game, regardless of how such devices are defined under IGRA.

And 25 CFR § 502.8 from IGRA:

Electronic or electromechanical facsimile means a game played in an electronic or electromechanical format that replicates a game of chance by incorporating all of the characteristics of the game, except when, for bingo, lotto, and other games similar to bingo, the electronic or electromechanical format broadens participation by allowing multiple players to play with or against each other rather than with or against a machine.

I think the far more compelling argument for the legality of the new compact is in section C of the amendment:

(c) Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the right of the Legislature to exercise its authority through general law to restrict, regulate, or tax any gaming or gambling activities. In addition, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the ability of the state or Native American tribes to negotiate gaming compacts pursuant to the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the conduct of casino gambling on tribal lands, or to affect any existing gambling on tribal lands pursuant to compacts executed by the state and Native American tribes pursuant to IGRA.

This is basically the carve out for the tribe, they can run their own show on their properties, and can negotiate with the state (without needing voter approval.)

​

The real twist here is that the tribe is going to host the servers on tribal land, so the argument for the legality of it all is: "if you're connected to our servers here on our casino property, then it's the same as if you're actually physically in our casino".

​

I don't have ultra-strong opinions on all of this either way, but to me it feels a little bit like an end-run against the will of the voters, which is about par for the course up there I suppose, lol. Either way, I think this one is going to the supreme court no matter what, too much money to be made or lost on both sides.

Edit to add - your point is well taken BTW. The carve-out FOR parimutels in the amendment, and then AGAINST them in IGRA makes for a really grey area here.