'No' on Prop. 1A Won't Kill South Placer Casino

By Amy Yannello, The Press-Tribune

Whether voters approve or deny Proposition 1A - the Indian gaming initiative that would ratify the tribal/state compacts reached last fall - most agree the decision would have little effect on a proposed  United Auburn Indian Community in South Placer.

A "no" vote on 1A wouldn't "kill the project," according to Howard Dickstein, attorney for the tribe. "But it makes it a less attractive investment for outsiders. In Placer County,  the tribe can be successful with almost any type of gaming. It would be more detrimental to tribes in remote locations that need the fuller scope of gaming to survive."

Cheryl Schmit, co-director of Stand Up California!, a grassroots group fighting the spread of "unregulated gambling" statewide, maintains that while she supports the Auburn tribe's compact reached  with Placer County officials, she sees Prop. 1A as being detrimental to California as a whole.

"As far as Placer County goes, Prop. 1A will not affect us," Schmit said. "We have an agreement with the county and tribe that goes well beyond Prop. 1A. The only thing we can't control is the  scope of gaming."

In a nutshell, Proposition 1A would amend the state constitution to make video slot machine gambling legal under state law. That provision, as well as others, is part of the state/tribal compact signed last  fall by Gov. Gray Davis and nearly 60 tribes, only 41 of which currently run gaming operations.

A "Yes" vote is needed to ratify the compacts. Among other things, the tribal/state  agreement:

• Limits the number of slot machines to 2,000 per tribe, to a maximum statewide of 45,000. There are about 21,000 slots currently statewide. The measure also allows banking card games on Indian land only,  but excludes such banking games as roulette, craps and sports games.
• Requires revenue sharing between gaming and non-gaming tribes; tribes would receive $1.1 million per year.
• Provides that unions may organize sectors of the workforce within casino operations.
• Requires tribes to pay the state's costs related to enforcement of the compact.
• Shared authority between the Division of Gambling Control within the state's Department of Justice and the tribal gaming commission.

Competing Measure

Muddying the waters is Proposition 29 - a competing measure on the March 7 ballot that seeks to ratify a previous compact between former Gov. Pete Wilson and the Pala Band of Mission Indians in San Diego  County. The measure would place strict limits on both the type and number of gambling machines allowed to be operated by tribal casinos.

Major differences between the Wilson and the Davis compacts include a reduction in the number of slots per tribe - the Wilson compact allows 1,000 - and the type of machines allowed. The Wilson compact would  authorize lottery-type slots, versus traditional slots where players receive coins at the time they win.

Prop. 1A supporters maintain that if both measures receive voter approval, Proposition 29 would be struck down and superseded by Prop. 1A. Supporters also argue that should voters only approve Proposition  29, it would have little effect on the current sate of gambling on Indian land because it is "a statutory initiative that ratifies compacts that have already been repealed by the state  Legislature," according to Dickstein.

"I'm not sure Prop. 29 would stand. It may be caught by the decision that the Supreme Court made in Proposition 5," he added.

Last August, the state Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 5 violated a provision of the 1984 initiative that established the California Lottery, now part of the state's constitution. It prohibited the  Legislature from allowing "casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey."

But supporters of the measure, who oppose Proposition 1A, claim a portion of the state constitution may still provide fodder for a legal challenge should Proposition 1A pass.

Article I, Section 7(b) guarantees that "a citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges and immunity not granted on the same terms to all citizens." Schmit and others maintain gaming  not permitted by non-Indian gaming interests in the state, Prop. 1A would violate this portion of the constitution.

"Those numbers are meaningless," Schmit charged, referring to the limits on slots imposed by the Davis compact.

Unlike the Wilson compact, which required tribes to reach consensus with local governments before casino construction, Schmit contends that beyond putting environmental documents out for review, tribes have  no requirement to take local concerns into consideration before building.

"It only gives the appearance of regulations. There is no enforcement. The tribe's own gaming commission will have tribal members sitting on it - all people who will benefit from the casino. You don't  even see that in Nevada."

" This compact leads citizens to believe they're protected, but they're not," she asserted.

Dickstein disagrees, saying that the state will share oversight with the tribes and that tribes will be required to comply with national environmental laws when preparing environmental impact reports on all  proposed casino projects.

Both agree, however, that the United Auburn Indian Community's proposal will remain untouched by the outcome of either proposition because Placer County's agreement goes far beyond what would be required in  either measure.

Quiet Campaigns

"I think the vote's going to be close," Schmit said of Prop. 1A. "It won't be the landslide (victory) we saw with Prop. 5." Still, Schmit holds few illusions that voters will choose Proposition 29 over 1A.

"If they're educated and told what it's about, polls show they tend to want Prop. 29," Schmit said. "But the problem has been getting the word out. There's no money for Prop. 29 and we've only  raised about $40,000 to oppose Prop. 1A."

Not surprisingly, Dickstein believes the lack of media attention to Prop. 29 is directly related to the validity of its proposals.

"There's a consensus behind Prop. 1A," he said. "No one is willing to put their money up to oppose it. There may be some confusion among voters, but hopefully they'll see that 96 tribes  support 1A and none support (Prop.) 29…and recognize that Prop. 29 is irrelevant and that's why they haven't heard anything about it."

While the drive to pass Proposition 5 was the most expensive in state history, supporters of Prop. 1A have only raised about $17 million for this year's push - far from the more than $100 million spent in  the 1998 proposal.

Copyright © 2000, The Press-Tribune