The editorial board operates independently from the U-T newsroom but holds itself to similar ethical standards. We base our editorials and endorsements on reporting, interviews and rigorous debate, and strive for accuracy, fairness and civility in our section. Disagree? Let us know.

Two propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot would sharply increase sports gambling in California. Proposition 26 would allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and horse racetracks. Proposition 27 would allow online sports betting on platforms run by tribes and gaming companies.

But the eye-popping $440 million spent for and against Propositions 26 and 27 as of the last official reporting period seems to have cast the die. A new poll from UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times found neither measure had support from even one-third of surveyed voters. With about one month left until Election Day — and with mail balloting about to begin — the odds of either winning seem long.

This is good news. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board opposes both measures for straightforward reasons that go beyond reservations about ballot-box budgeting, unclear effects on tribes whose views on this matter, and legitimate apprehensions over the risk to society when the barriers to legally betting on sports are lowered.

Proposition 26, which is less far reaching, would allow in-person sports betting at Native American casinos and the state’s four horse racetracks, and let tribal casinos add roulette and dice games. Tracks would give a 10 percent cut of wagers to the state, and casinos would negotiate compacts on their payments. Funds would go to schools, gambling addiction programs, gambling enforcement and general uses. But advocates have no good explanation for why the measure includes a hugely self-serving proviso that makes it easier for tribes to sue and punish rival card-room operators. And they barely respond to criticism the measure would prop up racetracks at a time when concerns about their treatment of horses have never been more intense.

Proposition 27, with major funding by giant U.S. betting platforms DraftKings and FanDuel, would allow sports betting online on sites run by California tribes and partnering companies, with a 10 percent state tax on wagers. Although small slices of revenue would go to fund homelessness programs and tribes with no stake in online betting, the measure is best seen as an effort by out-of-state corporations to manipulate direct democracy to super-size profits.

But another large problem is that Proposition 27’s ability to quickly seize a big share of online betting is highly exaggerated. Newbies who have been reluctant to use their phones and laptops to bet with nominally illegal Caribbean- and European-based online sports books may sign up. But will existing online bettors? That group includes 52 percent of all sports gamblers, according to a 2020 U.S. Gaming Association report. And they can easily get better payoffs from websites that take less off the top than California would. Attempts to block the use of these more lucrative offshore websites are easily thwarted with cheap virtual private networks (VPNs). This fact also will hurt racetracks’ ability to attack sports bettors — and undercut revenue assumptions of 26 as well as 27. The parallels with Proposition 64 — the 2016 ballot measure that presumed, incorrectly, that enforcement would let legal cannabis crowd out cheaper illegal products and create a flood of new state revenue — are obvious.

Future California ballot measures on gaming are inevitable. They should also be better crafted. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends “no” votes on both Propositions 26 and 27.