LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND
Nonpartisan In Depth Analysis of
|
|
PROPOSITION 29
1998 INDIAN GAMING COMPACTS.
 |
|
Referendum Statute
|
THE QUESTION
Should the 1998 law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, which gave formal
approval to 11 tribal-state gaming compacts, be approved?
PROVISIONS
Proposition 29 would:
- Allow the 11 Pala Compacts which authorize video lottery terminals to go into effect. (A court
finding that the terminals act as slot machines and not as lotteries would nullify the compacts.)
- Make the Governor responsible for negotiating compacts in the future, and set up procedures
for their approval.
BACKGROUND
See BACKGROUND FOR PROPOSITION 1A AND PROPOSITION 29.
FISCAL EFFECT
The fiscal effect of proposition 29 depends on whether Proposition 1A passes:
- Passage of Proposition 1 A would replace the Pala Compacts with newer compacts, and this
Proposition 29 would have no fiscal effect.
- Defeat of Proposition 1A coupled with passage of Proposition 29 would allow the Pala
Compacts to take effect. Indian tribes throughout the state could then operate lottery-type
gambling machines. A court could, however, determine that the machines operate as slot
machines, not as lotteries. In that case the compacts would be void. The machines differ from
familiar slot machines, making it hard to predict how much spending they would divert from
other states. The Legislative Analyst says "the fiscal impact is unknown, but it probably would
not be significant."
A YES vote means that the 1998 state law enacting 11 Indian gambling compacts would go into
effect, but only if Proposition 1A on this ballot is not approved by the voters. If Proposition 1A is
approved, these compacts would be replaced by newer ones and Proposition 29 would be
superceded.
A NO vote means that the 1998 state law enacting Indian gambling compacts would not go into
effect.
SUPPORTERS SAY
- The 1998 Pala Compacts are fair and reasonable casino agreements, reached by the Governor
and a number of tribes, and passed by the Legislature.
- They contain safeguards as to the number of machines allowed (19,900 statewide), as well as
modest enforceable controls over casino locations, workers' rights, licensing procedures,
background checks, and the like.
- These compacts help the Native Americans while preventing California from becoming a
gambling haven like Nevada.
OPPONENTS SAY
- In 1998, Californians voted overwhelmingly in favor of Proposition 5, in order to help Native
Americans achieve self-reliance. Because Proposition 5 has been declared unconstitutional, the
goal of self-reliance for Indian tribes calls for passage of Proposition 1A and defeat of
Proposition 29.
- The Pala Compacts were forced on California Indian tribes.
- The 11 tribes that originally signed the Pala Compacts in 1998 have agreed that they should be
replaced by the newer compacts of September 1999.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
The official ballot arguments in support are signed by Art Croney, Executive Director, Committee
on Moral Concerns; Harvey N. Chinn, California Director, National Coalition Against Gambling
Expansion; Cheryl A. Schmit, Co-Chair, Stand Up for California.
The official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Richard M. Milanovich, Tribal Chairman,
and Agua Caliente, Band of Cahuilla Indians.
For more information:
Supporters: Art Croney, Committee on Moral Concerns, 916-446-5131, www.moralconcerns.org
Opponents: Gene Raper, 916-441-3734
On Propositions:
About our Analysis -
List of Props -
Smart Voter
LWVC Home -
Election '00 -
Voting Q&As -
State Props -
About Us
Last updated: January 24, 2000
Send comments and suggestions concerning the content of this page to
lwvcprocon@hotmail.com.
Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to cmwatts@ibm.net
Copyright 2000 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. All rights reserved.
This page may be linked to or printed in its entirety as long as "About our Analysis" page is also printed.
|
