THE QUESTIONShould the 1998 law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, which gave formal approval to 11 tribal-state gaming compacts, be approved? THE SITUATIONThe federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 requires a compact between state and tribe whenever Class III gaming is involved. About 40 of some 100 Indian rancherias and reservations in California are engaged in gambling operations that include some form of Class III gambling. Only 11, the Pala Band and others, are currently eligible for federal approval because of valid compacts with the state. The 1998 Pala compacts are on hold awaiting the voters' decision on Proposition 1A and Proposition 29. In November 1998, voters approved Proposition 5 providing for various types of gambling on Indian lands in California, including video slot machines, a form of Class III game. The State Supreme Court declared the proposition unconstitutional less than a year later because video slot machines were found to be Nevada- and New Jersey-type gambling. This is expressly prohibited in the State Constitution, consistent with the state's history of discouraging casino gambling. The Governor and 57 tribes, including those with Pala compacts, have since negotiated new tribal-state gaming compacts. The new compacts are generally less restrictive than the Pala compacts. Passage of the Constitutional Amendment Proposition 1A would put the newer compacts into effect, thereby superceding Proposition 29 and the Pala compacts. THE PROPOSALPassage of Proposition 29, coupled with the defeat of Proposition 1A, would: · allow the 11 Pala Compactsto go into effect · make the Governor responsible for negotiating compacts in the future, and set up procedures for their approval. FISCAL EFFECTAccording to the Legislative Analyst, the fiscal effect of proposition 29 depends on whether Proposition 1A passes. Passage of Proposition 1A would replace the Pala Compactswith newer compacts, in which case Proposition 29 would have no fiscal effect. Defeat of Proposition 1A, coupled with passage of Proposition 29, would allow the Pala Compactsto take effect. The Legislative Analyst says that Proposition 29 would result in unknown, but probably not significant, impacts on state and local governments. 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. · The Pala Compacts restrict the number of machines allowed (19,900 statewide), thus preventing California from becoming a gambling haven like Nevada. OPPONENTS SAY· Californians voted in favor of Proposition 5 to help Native Americans achieve self-reliance. That goal now calls for defeat of Proposition 29 and passage of Proposition 1A. · 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. For more information: Supporters: (916) 446-5131, www.moralconcerns.org (Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund  
On Propositions:
About our Analysis -
List of Props -
Election '00 -
Smart Voter
LWVC Home -
Voting Q&As -
State Props -
About Us
Last updated: January 18, 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. This page may be linked to or printed in its entirety. |
