![]() |
|
November 2004 | ![]() |
|
|
|
||||
| HOME | SEARCH | CONTACT US | SITE MAP | ||||
TRIBAL
GAMING COMPACTS. EXCLUSIVE GAMING RIGHTS. CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE. THE QUESTION Should the California Constitution be amended to require the governor to offer to Indian tribes 99-year compacts for casinos with unlimited Nevada-style gaming, with a contribution to the state at normal business tax rates (currently 8.8 percent)? THE SITUATION Since 1999, 64 Indian tribes have signed compacts allowing them to operate gaming casinos on California Indian land. For this privilege, the tribes pay over $100 million per year, supporting smaller tribes. Currently there are 53 casinos with over 54,000 slot machines. Slot machine casinos are not legal in California outside Indian tribal lands. In June 2004, the Governor signed compacts with five leading tribes promising to preserve their casino gambling monopoly and allowing unlimited slot machines. The five tribes are required to make annual payments to the state. The state can use these payments for any purpose. Other tribes are expected to sign compacts, with expected total payments in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Both Propositions 68 and 70 affect the numbers of California slot machines. If the two approved provisions are in conflict, only the measure with more yes votes will take effect. THE PROPOSAL If the tribes request, Proposition 70 requires the governor to offer tribes renewable 99- year gaming compacts providing exclusive rights to Nevada-style gaming with no limit on numbers of slots or types of games. In return, the tribes would contribute a portion of net income based on the prevailing corporate tax rate, currently 8.8 percent, in addition to payments under 1999 compacts. Environmental impact study requirements in the 1999 compacts would continue to be in effect, but tribes would not be required to negotiate with local governments. FISCAL EFFECT Because payments to the state would be based on income generated instead of number of machines, they would tend to be lower. Local governments would likely receive less money since tribes would not be required to negotiate with them. WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEAN A YES vote means tribes entering a new or amended tribal-state gambling compact would make payments to the state based on their gambling income. These compacts would last 99 years and place no limits on the types or number of casino games. A NO vote means that tribes would continue to be subject to existing tribal-state gambling compacts. SUPPORTERS SAY
OPPONENTS SAY
For more information: Supporters: Citizens for a Fair Share of Indian Gaming Revenues, (760) 778-7413, www.Indianfairshare.org. Opponents: No on Proposition 68 and 70— Governor Schwarzenegger’s Committee for Fair Share Gaming Agreements, (916) 440- 1505, www.noon68and70.org
You may link to any individual proposition page. You may print and circulate this copyrighted material if you use it in its entirety (the introductory page plus the 16 proposition pages) and give credit to the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to lwvc@vcwatts.org |
| |
|
|
|
|