California’s struggling horse racing industry has hit yet another roadblock in its quest to survive. A recent ruling by State Attorney General Rob Bonta, upholding tribal gaming rights, has significantly weakened hopes of legalizing Historical Horse Racing (HHR) machines — devices resembling slot machines that could have provided a much-needed revenue stream to fund racing purses.
The ruling came as part of a decision against daily fantasy sweepstakes, and while not directly related to HHR, it served as a strong reaffirmation of tribal sovereignty in the state’s gambling ecosystem. Indigenous tribes, empowered by Proposition 1A and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, hold exclusive rights to Class III gaming, which includes slot-style machines — a category HHR machines fall into.
“The chances of horse racing ramming something past the tribes is slim and none,” said Victor Rocha, Indian Gaming Association conference chair.
Racing Industry’s Desperation
California’s racing circuit, particularly in Southern California, has been steadily declining. Shrinking foal crops, aging bettors, and reduced purses have created a crisis. The recent closure of Golden Gate Fields and the end of Northern California fair racing were aimed at redirecting betting revenues south to tracks like Santa Anita and Del Mar. But insiders admit that these stopgaps are not enough.
Industry stakeholders have looked to Historical Horse Racing as a potential savior. The machines, while based on old races, mimic slots in experience and functionality — something that has generated millions in revenue for racing states like Kentucky and Arkansas. The goal in California was to divert a share of HHR revenue (proposed: 1% to breeders, 3% to purses, 4% to tribes) to stabilize the sport.
However, Rocha was blunt in his assessment:
“The whole argument that HHR machines will save horse racing is false… The only thing that can save horse racing is the second coming.”
Legal and Political Barriers
Attempts to expand gambling without tribal support have historically failed in California. In 2004, a ballot initiative that would’ve allowed non-tribal gaming was defeated by a staggering 84% to 16%. Now, with tribes more empowered than ever, trying to push through legislation or regulatory changes around HHR is seen as nearly impossible without tribal collaboration.
Rocha also criticized racing’s political clout:
“They don’t have enough juice or enough power… The average age of a horse player is decomposing.”
Despite claims from The Stronach Group, owners of Santa Anita, that talks are underway with some tribal representatives, Rocha and others in the tribal community deny any serious discussions have occurred. All members of the HHR working group have signed NDAs, further fueling frustration and confusion within the racing community.
A Fractured Strategy
The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) has not been part of current HHR negotiations, but would serve as the regulatory body if the machines were ever legalized. Some speculate a racetrack could bring HHR forward as an agenda item, forcing CHRB to act, but legal precedent strongly favors tribal exclusivity.
Even if the CHRB approved such a request, it would likely face immediate legal challenges — and tribal opposition.
What’s Next?
As Rocha emphasized, tribes view exclusivity as non-negotiable.
“If they go down that path [without us], there will be a fight.”
The broader reality is grim: California horse racing is bleeding, and any chance of salvation through gaming will require tribal approval — something that, at present, seems unlikely.
While tracks continue to stay quiet — claiming the issue is “too delicate” to litigate in public — the lack of transparency, coupled with the firm tribal stance, has left many in the racing industry disillusioned and bracing for further decline.
