Proposition 48 is a referendum that asks if the recently signed compacts between two Indian tribes and the state of California should be allowed to go into effect.

BACKGROUND

Indian gaming was legalized in California in 2000 by Proposition 1-A. Indian casinos are subject to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and are limited to land that was part of the tribal reservation as of October 17, 1988, the date on which the IGRA took effect. The IGRA does allow for exceptions to permit tribes to open off-reservation casinos, though this exception is not granted very often. Fifty-eight of California’s 109 federally recognized Indian tribes operate a total of 59 casinos in the state.

HISTORY

If passed, Prop. 48, in allowing the gaming compacts to go into effect, would be the first time a California tribe is allowed to open a casino on lands that were not part of its reservation as of October 1988. The North Fork’s reservation is located in a remote area and is primarily residential. The location of the proposed casino, in contrast, is off a major highway in the Central Valley, in an area where there are other Indian gaming facilities. In addition, the proposed site is on land that was historically part of the tribe’s land before it was ceded to the federal government in an unratified treaty.

The petition drive to put Prop. 48 on the ballot was headed by Stand Up For California, a casino-watchdog organization based in Sacramento. The campaign to collect signatures was managed by Keep Vegas-Style Casinos Out of Neighborhoods, a project of Stand Up For California. The campaign against Prop. 48 is being funded by a number of organizations, including two Indian tribes that operate casinos in the area.

LITIGATION

In March 2014, the North Fork Rancheria won a court judgment that the compact is legal. However, Stand Up For California appealed the ruling, and Secretary of State Debra Bowen has stayed the compact until the results of the November referendum are known. The North Fork Rancheria has also filed a lawsuit claiming that Prop. 48 is illegal on two grounds: They argue that federal approval of the compact is final and thus the compact cannot be de‑ratified, and they argue that an agreement between the Legislature and a tribe is not subject to the referendum process.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In addition to allowing the North Fork Rancheria to open a casino and providing the Wiyot tribe a share of the profits, the compacts also exempt certain projects associated with the compacts from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Operating the casino would provide jobs for members of the North Fork tribe and others and would create revenue for the local area. However, any increased revenue would likely be offset by decreases in other nearby areas, as the number of people who will work at local casinos and the number of people who tend to gamble annually are relatively static.

Arguments In Opposition:

• These compacts break the promise that Indian casinos would only be located on original reservation land.
• Prop. 48 would open the door to an increase in the already large number of casinos in the state.
• The revenue from Prop. 48 would not go to education or the state’s general fund.
• The casino will increase development, traffic, and pollution.

Arguments In Support:

• Prop. 48 will be good for the local economy.
• Prop. 48 supports tribal self-sufficiency at no cost to taxpayers.
• The proposed casino avoids development on environmentally fragile land in the Sierras and in Humboldt County.
• The casino would be located on land that historically belonged to the tribe.

More about Supporters:

Vote Yes 48 Campaign • www.VoteYes48.com

Supporters of Prop. 48 include:

(Signers of official arguments are in bold.)

• Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.
• Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Madera County
• Robbie Hunter, President, State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
• Sheriff John Anderson, Madera County Sheriffs’ Office
• Debi Bray, President, Madera Chamber of Commerce
• Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• City of Madera Police Officers Association
• California Association of Tribal Governments
• Dan Cunning, Yosemite Sierra Visitors Bureau
• California Democratic Party
• California Labor Federation
• Assemblyman Frank Bigelow, former President, California State Association of Counties
• UNITE HERE!, representing more than 49,000 California workers

Major Financial Contributions  (Financial contributions to ballot measure campaigns can change frequently—readers may check for more recent contribution updates by visiting votersedge.org, Fair Political Practices Commission and Cal-Access.)

(as of September 24, 2014 total: $378,700)

• Station Casinos, LLC and North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians ($375,000)
• California Democratic Party & Affiliates ($3,658)

From Voter’s Edge:

http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2014/november/prop-48/funding

More about Opponents:

No on Prop. 48—Keep Vegas-Style Casinos Out of Neighborhoods • www.StopReservationShopping.com

Opponents of Prop. 48 include:

(Signers of official arguments are in bold.)

• Henry Perea, Fresno County Supervisor
• Manuel Cunha, Jr., President, Nisei Farmers League
• Gary Archuleta, Tribal Chairman, Mooretown Rancheria
• David Rogers, Madera County Supervisor
• Stand Up For California

Major Financial Contributions (Financial contributions to ballot measure campaigns can change frequently—readers may check for more recent contribution updates by visiting votersedge.org, Fair Political Practices Commission and Cal-Access.)

(as of September 24, 2014 total: $6.7 million)

• Table Mountain Rancheria ($3,528,099)
• Brigade Capital Management ($2,666,780)
• Riva Ridge Recovery Fund LLC ($226,232)
• DG Capital Management ($113,258)
• United Auburn Indian Community ($100,000)
• Chukchansi Economic Development Authority ($25,000)
• Club One Casino, Inc. ($15,000)

From Voter’s Edge:

http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2014/november/prop-48/funding