SB 397 changes how California racing associations can mix breeds and authorizes quarter‑horse associations to add short claiming thoroughbred races if they satisfy a set of distance, claiming‑price, program‑composition, and consent requirements. The bill also specifies how purse money and redistributed welfare funds must be split and requires fixed pension contributions for backstretch personnel administered by trainers’ organizations.
This matters for racing operators, horsemen’s organizations, and trainers because it creates a legal path to run brief thoroughbred sprints at quarter‑horse meetings while building in protections—consent thresholds, program limits, and formulaic money flows—to preserve quarter‑horse programming and fund labor benefits. The provisions will change race scheduling, purse accounting, and bargaining leverage between associations and horsemen’s groups.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 397 limits an 'A' license for a non‑fair association to a single type of racing but lets the California Horse Racing Board authorize limited entry of thoroughbreds and Appaloosas into quarter‑horse races under detailed conditions. It also allows quarter‑horse associations to apply to run short claiming thoroughbred races (capped by distance and claiming price) and prescribes pension and purse distribution rules.
Who It Affects
Licensed race associations (particularly quarter‑horse tracks), quarter‑horse and thoroughbred horsemen’s organizations, thoroughbred trainers’ organizations that administer backstretch pensions, the California Horse Racing Board, and registries/official registering agencies referenced for deductions.
Why It Matters
The bill formalizes mixed‑breed racing paths and ties them to explicit consent and money flows, shifting how programs are written and how revenue is partitioned—key operational and bargaining points for track operators, horsemen’s groups, and labor advocates.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 397 begins by reinforcing that an A license issued to an association (other than a fair) is generally for one type of racing only—thoroughbred, harness, or quarter horse—while carving out narrowly circumscribed exceptions that permit mixed entries and cross‑type races with board approval. The bill allows the California Horse Racing Board to authorize thoroughbreds and Appaloosas to run in quarter‑horse races, but it attaches multiple programing and composition constraints designed to keep quarter‑horse racing as the dominant product at those meetings.
Those constraints reach down to the race card. If thoroughbreds or Appaloosas are admitted, mixed races must be written as 'quarter horse preferred,' the majority of races on a card must be quarter‑horse sprints of 550 yards or less (unless the quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization consents to a different mix), and there are limits on longer quarter‑horse preferred races and on how many thoroughbreds may compete in any mixed race.
The board may permit exceptions on a race‑by‑race basis, but the statutory default emphasizes quarter‑horse priority and gives the horsemen’s organization a veto‑style role via required consent.SB 397 also creates financial guardrails. A quarter‑horse association that obtains authorization to run thoroughbred races must limit those thoroughbred races to short sprints and to claiming races (the statute sets a maximum claiming price in the bill), and must make multiple mandated payments: a percentage designated for existing statutory payments to quarter‑horse horsemen’s organizations, a 1 percent contribution of the amount available to thoroughbred purses to a pension plan for backstretch personnel (to be administered by a thoroughbred trainers’ organization), and deductions required for the official registering agency.
Redistributed money collected by the board that originates from mixed‑breed races must be split pro rata between the relevant welfare funds based on the actual number of horses of each breed that ran in the race.Practically, the measure creates a controlled mechanism for quarter‑horse venues to introduce short, lower‑level thoroughbred racing while preserving program composition and channeling new revenue into pension and welfare buckets. The combination of quantitative program limits and consent requirements makes the change conditional and negotiable rather than an automatic reclassification of a track's license or a wholesale opening of mixed‑breed racing across the state.
The Five Things You Need to Know
An A license for an association other than a fair is limited to one racing type, but the Board may authorize thoroughbreds and Appaloosas to run in quarter‑horse races subject to detailed conditions.
When thoroughbreds/Appaloosas join quarter‑horse races, mixed races must be written 'quarter horse preferred,' and thoroughbreds must constitute fewer than half the starters unless the quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization agrees otherwise.
More than half of races on any program must be quarter‑horse sprints of no more than 550 yards unless the quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization consents to a different mix; races exceeding 870 yards written as quarter horse preferred are limited to three per program without that consent.
A quarter‑horse association may apply to run thoroughbred claiming races limited to short sprints (statute sets the maximum distance at four and one‑half furlongs) and a capped claiming price (the bill text specifies the cap), but inclusion requires the quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization’s consent.
The bill mandates finance flows: a quarter‑horse association must pay the Section 19613(e) amount to its horsemen’s organization, contribute 1% of the amount available to thoroughbred purses toward a backstretch pension administered by a thoroughbred trainers’ organization, and deduct amounts required to fund the thoroughbred registering agency; redistributed welfare funds from mixed races are split pro rata by horse count.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
License type restriction and mixed‑breed authorization conditions
This subsection restates that an A license (non‑fair) is issued for a single type of racing, but authorizes the Board to permit thoroughbreds and Appaloosas to enter quarter‑horse races at distances not exceeding five furlongs in certain meeting types. It then lists granular conditions that must be met if the Board allows such entries: the mixed races must be written as 'quarter horse preferred'; more than half the program must be quarter‑horse races at no more than 550 yards absent horsemen’s consent; races over 870 yards written as quarter horse preferred are capped at three per program without consent; mixed Appaloosa/quarter‑horse races require consent; and thoroughbreds must be fewer than half the starters unless an exception is granted. These mechanics preserve program dominance for quarter‑horse racing and give the contracted quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization multiple leverage points to block or shape mixed races.
Pension contribution and welfare fund allocation from mixed races
Subdivision (b) compels the hosting association to pay a pension contribution equal to 1 percent of the amount available to thoroughbred horses for purses to a thoroughbred trainers’ organization, to administer backstretch pensions. It directs that any redistributable money from mixed‑breed races that the Board pays to a horsemen’s welfare fund be divided pro rata between the thoroughbred and quarter‑horse welfare funds based on the actual number of each breed in the race. This section turns mixed‑breed starts into a formulaic source of labor and welfare funding, and forces precise counting and accounting to implement the pro rata split.
Application and limits for quarter‑horse associations to run thoroughbred races
This provision requires the Board to grant authorization when a quarter‑horse association applies, provided three conditions are met: the thoroughbred contests are limited to claiming races below the statute’s claiming‑price cap and to short distances (four and one‑half furlongs or less), the program composition retains a majority of short quarter‑horse races unless horsemen consent otherwise, and the quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization contracts with the association consents to inclusion. The clause effectively makes authorization ministerial once statutory thresholds and consent are in place, tying regulatory approval to contractual buy‑in from the horsemen’s organization.
Required payments, pension administration, and registering‑agency deductions
A quarter‑horse association operating thoroughbred races under this subdivision must pay the monetary amount specified in subdivision (e) of Section 19613 to the quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization, contribute the 1 percent pension amount described earlier to a thoroughbred trainers’ organization, and deduct the amount required by subdivision (a) of Section 19617.2 for the thoroughbred official registering agency. Practically, this layers the new thoroughbred program onto existing statutory payment streams, requiring tracks to code, withhold, and remit distinct line items for horsemen’s payments, pensions, and registering‑agency fees.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Backstretch personnel — the bill creates a dedicated 1% pension contribution from amounts available to thoroughbred purses, increasing funding for retirement/benefit programs administered by a trainers’ organization.
- Quarter‑horse associations that want expanded programming — they gain a statutory path to add short, lower‑level thoroughbred sprints that can broaden the card and potentially increase handle, subject to consent and statutory limits.
- Thoroughbred trainers’ organizations — they receive responsibility to administer the pension contribution and gain a predictable funding stream tied to any authorized thoroughbred starts at quarter‑horse meetings.
- Welfare funds for both breeds — redistributed money from mixed races must be split pro rata, so both quarter‑horse and thoroughbred welfare programs will see formulaic allocations when mixed races occur.
Who Bears the Cost
- Quarter‑horse horsemen’s organizations — they must consent to changes and may face diluted program slots or competitive shifts; they also bear negotiation and monitoring costs to enforce consent protections.
- Quarter‑horse associations that add thoroughbred races — they face new operational compliance: withholding and remitting multiple mandated payments, tracking breed counts for pro rata splits, and managing registering‑agency deductions.
- Thoroughbred owners and trainers running low‑level claiming sprints — they will compete at lower claiming levels and short distances, which can affect market dynamics and resale/claiming strategies for horses suited to longer races.
- California Horse Racing Board — the Board gains additional oversight duties to authorize mixed entries, monitor compliance with program ratios, and resolve disputes about race composition and accounting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to balance two valid goals—protecting quarter‑horse racing identity and revenue while giving tracks flexibility to run short thoroughbred claiming sprints that can boost revenue and fund labor pensions—yet every protection (consents, program caps, pro rata splits) increases complexity and creates leverage points that can stall or distort the intended flexibility.
SB 397 threads a narrow needle: it permits cross‑type racing while embedding multiple consent and accounting safeguards. That approach reduces the risk of wholesale displacement of quarter‑horse programs, but it leaves open several implementation headaches.
The statute relies on precise measurements (yards versus furlongs, program percentages, and per‑race starter counts) that will require consistent operational definitions and reporting systems across associations, horsemen’s groups, and the Board. Counting starters to allocate redistributed funds pro rata is straightforward in theory but creates audit burdens and potential disputes over entries scratched late or horses moved between races.
The financial mechanics create another set of practical questions. The 1 percent pension contribution is tied to 'the amount available to thoroughbred horses for purses,' a term that can vary by accounting method (gross purse account, net after certain deductions, inclusion of supplemental funds).
How associations calculate that base will materially affect pension receipts and residual purse money. Finally, giving the quarter‑horse horsemen’s organization consent rights solves a political problem—preserving the primary product—but it centralizes bargaining power in one actor, which could be weaponized in contract negotiations or lead to strategic withholding of consent that stifles legitimate commercial experimentation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.