Proponents say the amendments would bring millions of dollars to the state. Opponents say there would not be enough oversight on revenues and they nullify certain environmental protections.
By Melonie Magruder / Special to The Malibu Times
Propositions 94-97 are referendums that would ratify amendments to the California Gaming Compacts approved by the Legislature last year and signed into law by the governor. If voters approve Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 in the primary election on Feb. 5, the agreements are binding for 23 years.
The amendments would allow the four largest Native American tribes in California-the Pechanga, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians-to expand their gaming revenues by adding an additional 17,000 slot machines in casinos they already operate, in exchange for giving the state government a higher percentage of the take.
Supporters say the amendments will bring millions of more dollars into state coffers at a time when the state is faced with a budget shortfall topping $15 billion, and will provide expanded revenues to smaller tribes and bring thousands of new job opportunities.
Opponents say the initiatives are not the windfall they seem.
The true amount of revenue the state could expect remains fuzzy, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysis, and the tribes themselves would calculate the revenue share going to the state. Opponents say that although the pacts allow state regulatory oversight in the casino expansions, they do not require adequate environmental protection. The amendments would not require certain projects on tribal land to adhere to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Another negative, opponents say, is the initiatives provide tremendous profits for the “Big 4” tribes, but fail to guarantee basic employment benefits for casino workers such as health insurance. And the pacts provide no guaranteed benefit to state education, the department that has suffered the most in budgetary crises.
While the governor is solidly behind the pacts (Schwarzenegger’s name tops the list of proponents under the Legislative Analyst’s arguments for a “Yes” vote on the referendums), local governmental representatives are not as optimistic.
Assemblymember Julia Brownley said, “I opposed the gaming initiatives when they were in the Assembly for approval. California needs real structural budget reform that will provide stability and predictability in our revenues, not more reliance on uncertain revenues coming from an expansion of Indian casinos.
“The state’s highly respected nonpartisan Legislative Analyst has already characterized the governor’s predicted figures for Indian gambling over the next two years as ‘rosy assumptions’,” Brownley continued. “Especially for the sake of our schools, we need to do better than this.”
State Sen. Sheila Kuehl is also against the Propositions 94 through 97.
“Regarding the Gaming [Compacts], I voted against them on the floor and I am not in favor of them now,” she said. “As they now read, the initiatives would only expand revenues for the four richest tribes, who have worked to keep smaller, non-gaming tribes from benefiting fairly from revenues.
“The four big tribes were supposed to have shared the bounty with the other tribes and they haven’t done so,” she continued. “We don’t get to see their books so there is no independent auditing, but the revenues brought in so far are no where near what was initially promised.”
In addition to the Governor’s Office, the Indian Gaming ballot referendums are endorsed by Jack O’Connell, the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Chief Gene Gantt, legislative director of the California Fire Chiefs Association.
They are opposed by the California Federation of Teachers, the American Indian Rights and Resources Organization, and the California Tax Reform Association.