An act to amend Section 19596.2 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to horse racing.
Summary
AB 2792 amends California’s horse racing law governing the importation of out-of-state thoroughbred races for wagering. Under existing law, California thoroughbred racing associations and fairs may simulcast and accept bets on certain out-of-state races during a race meeting, but statewide imported races are generally capped at 75 per day when live racing is occurring in the state. This bill adds the New York Stakes to the list of major races exempt from that 75-race daily cap.
In practical terms, the bill would allow California tracks and fairs to import and wager on races that are part of the New York Stakes race card even when the statewide imported-race limit has been reached. The bill does not change the underlying authority to simulcast out-of-state races, the existing time restrictions on late-starting races, or the consent requirements tied to harness and quarter horse associations in Orange and Sacramento counties. It is a narrow amendment to one subsection of Business and Professions Code Section 19596.2.
Impact
AB 2792 would modify Business and Professions Code Section 19596.2 by expanding the list of exempted marquee races that are not counted toward California’s 75-imported-thoroughbred-race-per-day limit. The affected parties are thoroughbred racing associations and fairs that offer simulcast wagering, as well as horse racing stakeholders whose race cards may be imported into California. The bill leaves the broader regulatory framework intact, including zone-based exceptions and time-of-day restrictions on accepting wagers on out-of-state races.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests the bill was received favorably and moved with little opposition. It was reported out of committee 21-0 and later passed the Assembly 73-0, and it was placed on the consent calendar, indicating broad agreement and a low level of controversy. The absence of committee transcript discussion also suggests the measure was viewed as a routine, technical adjustment to existing horse racing wagering rules rather than a major policy change.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive opposition in the provided history. Any potential concern would likely come from horse racing interests affected by the statewide imported-race cap, particularly if additional exempt races reduce the practical significance of the limit or affect wagering competition among racing associations. However, the bill’s unanimous votes and consent-calendar treatment indicate that no notable contention emerged in the legislative process provided here.