Replies

Thanks for clarifying. I had read IGRA before, but didn't recall the DOI approval step.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are arguing for, or against.
Does it have to do with one of the following, or?

-Increase in scope (roulette, etc.)
-Length of compact (99 year)
-Payment of corporate tax rate on revenue
-Severability of issues if found unconstitutional
-Application of Prop 70 legislation to previously negotiated compacts
-Indian monopoly in California

From what I read of Prop 70, it would standardize the compact language which would allow all tribes to get the same 'deal' when executing compacts with the state. Why shouldn't they all have to play out of the same rulebook? Is it the specific rules laid out by the A.C. tribe that you object to? If so, which one?

Prop 70 is wrong for the following reasons:

No tribe need to enter into the new compact unless they intend on having more than two thousand slot machines. Because of the rural locations, and the limitations of the size of land, more than two thirds of the tribes in the state would never need to enter into these new compacts.

No state proposition can compel action by the federal government. It is a major opening for attack against portions of the proposition, and my supposition is that it was purposely written that way.

The compelling of action by both the governor and the state legislature is on shaky ground, and again, another large opening for challenge.

The 'corporate tax' rate is flawed. Any state company pays both federal and state taxes on income, and most of the federal taxes returns to the state in the form of grants and subsidies. It places the tribes at a huge advantage at the outset, and still only partially covers the costs to the state, counties and communities for Indian gaming.

The monopoly issue is completely unrelated. Modifying the state constitution to permit different forms of gaming is open to both the legislature and the people. Of course, if any form of any type of gaming is permitted within the state, the tribes may engage in that form of gaming on trust land without compact or limitations on size, aside from their own borders. This is the heart of the Cabazon decision that sparked the IGRA.

Prop 70 sidesteps the legislative and executive spheres of power, steps on the federal government's responsibilities, and delivers minimal returns. Beyond, it is not needed for standardization. Already all tribes are being offered the same (or materially similar) deals by Schwarzenegger, though holdout tribes refuse to even enter into negotiations.

It's bad legislation written by the tribes which they wrongly assumed the electorate would flock to. They forgot that they're no longer 'poor Indians' The people don't seem to think that they need to be automatically granted more than 2000 slot machine licenses. They've noticed how their roads are being worn, how their emergency services are being stressed. They're also satisfied that their elected government is negotiating for them, rather than a few tribes dictating the terms of the deal.

I hope this makes my position more clear. And if none of this convinces you, just think of all the millions that the state won't have to spend defending this proposition from card clubs, race tracks, and the tribes themselves.