Proposition 5 may decide future of Indian gaming
By Daily Bruin Staff
Oct. 21, 1998 9:00 p.m.
Thursday, October 22, 1998
Proposition 5 may decide future of Indian gaming
PROPOSITION: Initiative spurs controversy concerning sovereignty
of tribes
By Brian Fishman
Daily Bruin Contributor
Korn Convocation Hall of The Anderson School at UCLA was the
site of a pitched battle over Proposition 5 on Tuesday.
Audience members sporting bright orange buttons and vivid union
T-shirts yelled in support as speakers on both sides of Proposition
5 argued the merits and faults of this controversial ballot
measure.
Proposition 5 will legalize the use of slot machines in
California, thereby allowing many recognized Indian tribes to
continue their gaming practices. Slot machines are currently not
permitted by the state without an explicit agreement with each
tribe.
Though many tribes use slot machines against the state’s wishes,
few have come to an agreement.
Tribes blame Gov. Pete Wilson for negotiating compacts in poor
faith.
"Proposition 5 was only drafted after years of frustration and
negotiating," said Jerry Levine, an attorney for the California
Indian Gaming Association.
"Promises were broken; as a result they’ve taken their case to
the people."
In the face of litigation threatening to shut down Indian
casinos using slot machines, 85 tribes authored Proposition 5,
arguing the proposition would allow them to continue their
operations.
Indian tribes that argue Proposition 5 is necessary claim the
Pala compact is a limiting agreement that concedes too much
regulatory jurisdiction to the state.
The Pala compact limits tribes to 199 slot machines per casino,
unless non-gaming tribes agree to sell their slot machine rights to
a gaming tribe.
"It’s like being a supermarket that can’t sell four boxes of
cereal without getting permission from a store down the street,"
Levine said.
Ken Ramirez, vice president of the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians, explained that the Pala compact is a "divide and conquer
strategy," designed to pit tribes against one another.
The proponents of Proposition 5 also seek to ensure their
sovereignty.
Mark Macarro, chairman of the Pechanga tribe, attacked the Pala
compact, claiming it allows the state to much power in regulating
indian casinos.
"(Pala would hand) significant tribal jurisdiction over to state
control; it asserts the states’ hegemony over Indian interests,"
Macarro said.
But the anti-Proposition 5 contingent asserted the Pala compact
is fair and allows the state to ensure that the casinos are run
fairly.
"The tribes I represent see a difference between sovereignty and
isolation," said Howard Dickstein, a lawyer for the Pala tribe.
"Prop. 5 says Å’trust us.’ Some tribes will do a good job,
some won’t," he said. "This isn’t so much unregulated gambling as
self-regulated gambling."
Macarro asserted that such conditions were necessary if tribes
are to be sovereign.
"Sovereignty is the ability (for a nation) to determine economic
development within its borders," said Macarro.
But opponents of the measure say it goes too far by forcing the
governor to sign the compact within 30 days of a tribe’s
request.
Proposition 5 is a non-negotiable, "straitjacket approach," said
Cathy Christian, an opponent of Proposition 5.
Opponents are concerned that negotiations may be difficult if
the governor is mandated to sign an agreement with tribes.
In addition, tribes may abuse this relationship, argue
opponents
Proponents say, however, that tribes will be more than willing
to negotiate in good faith. Levine pointed to the 30-day period as
evidence that tribes will negotiate.
Much of the debate Tuesday night focused on labor relations in
tribal casinos.
Maria Elena Daranza of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees (HERE) chastised Proposition 5 for not including
sufficient worker protection.
"We want to make sure that when that growth happens workers are
included (and) that they have enforceable rights, real enforceable
rights," Daranza said.
She pointed to the Pala compact as a model for Proposition 5
because it explicitly outlined union participation in the tribal
casinos.
Proposition 5 does not provide worker protection, leaving open
the possibility that workers could be manipulated by casino
leadership.
However, Proposition 5 does not prohibit unions, and some have
already popped up at existing casinos operating without a
compact.
Workers at the casino run by the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians negotiate collectively said Ramirez.
Another issue brought to light by the Proposition 5 campaign is
whether tribes can purchase land off reservations and use that land
to build casinos. Currently, tribes need the approval of both the
governor and the secretary of the interior.
"The notion that tribes could buy land in downtown L.A. is
unrealistic, except in the most theoretical ways. It just won’t
happen," said Levine.
But Christian noted that that is exactly what happened in
Wisconsin when a tribe bought land in downtown Milwaukee and built
a casino.
Throughout the debate, Proposition 5 supporters associated
opponents of the measure with Nevada casino money, repeatedly
attacking their motives as greedy and self-interested.
"Kathy (Christian) gives you a Nevada perspective. I encourage
you to take her opinion with a grain of salt," said Levine.
BAHMAN FARAHDEL/Daily Bruin
Jerome Levine, attorney for the California Indian Gaming
Association, speaks at a Prop. 5 debate held at UCLA.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]
