So, you're arguing on behalf of the tribes... just not the tribes proposing the legislation, correct? And that some of the small tribes should continue to be exempt? Do you have a dog in this fight?
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.
I can see an opportunity for those tribes that already entered into compacts to challenge whether they should be required to enter into new ones (A deals a deal?). But I don't see the whole thing falling apart. Even under that scenario, all other tribes would be subject to this... at least that's the way I read it.
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.
No one is trying to compare these to U.S. businesses, hence the federal income tax discussion seems irrelevant. Regardless, you're saying that tribes don't get U.S. subsidies or grants so they are disadvantaged? I still see no relevance to that.
Prop 70 sidesteps the legislative and executive spheres of power, steps on the federal government's responsibilities, and delivers minimal returns.
Putting it up for vote doesn't seem like side-stepping. And, as you pointed out, the compacts still require legislative and DOI approval. Payment to the state equivalent to the state corporate franchise tax rate does provide a return (in the $billions, which does not seem minimal).
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.
There is no requirement, nor check and balance to monitor that. It may not be needed, but it certainly would limit the opportunity for corruption.
It's bad legislation written by the tribes which they wrongly assumed the electorate would flock to.
I know you've concluded that, but I still haven't seen the logic that supports the argument.
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.
That issue exists with or without this proposition.
They're also satisfied that their elected government is negotiating for them, rather than a few tribes dictating the terms of the deal.
Some are, some aren't; and most probably have no clue, lol.
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.
I'm still undecided. To me, the opportunity for legal challenges exist with or without this proposition. The standardization aspect appeals to me, as do the provisions requiring that they be owned and operated by the tribes (not Las Vegas interests) and the requirement to work with the localities, disclose their plans, have public hearings, etc. Overall, it sounds like an improvement for California citizens.