Voters pass measure to let tribes run casinos on their own terms

Michelle DeArmond

Tuesday, Nov. 3, 1998 | 10:24 a.m.

LOS ANGELES - California's Indian tribes, who poured record amounts of money into a battle with Nevada casinos over gambling on reservations, won broad voter approval Tuesday to continue running their casinos unfettered by state control.

Campaign spending for and against the measure was reaching $100 million, breaking all records as the Nevada gambling interests put their dollars against the profits of a handful of prosperous Indian casinos.

Proposition 5 won by a comfortable margin, with the vast majority of black, Hispanic and elderly voters supporting it, according to an exit poll of voters conducted by Voter News Service for The Associated Press and five national television outlets.

With 13 percent of the state's precincts reporting, the measure collected 770,031 votes or 58 percent to 553,863 votes against or 42 percent.

Proposition 5 is "the first time that wealthy business interests have not been allowed to sacrifice the lives of Indians and future Indians to satisfy their greed," said Anthony Pico, chairman of the Viejas tribe in San Diego County. He was surrounded by 300 tribal members, customers, employees and campaign workers at an election night party at the tribe's thriving casino.

Opponents decried the Viejas and other tribes for spending so much to get the proposition passed and vowed to quickly file a lawsuit to halt implementation of the measure. The total raised between the two sides was nearly twice the previous record amount ever raised for a single initiative - $57.5 million for a 1996 securities fraud measure.

"I think it's disappointing that the proponents were able to spend more than $70 million, which is more than any other campaign in history to pass an initiative that is not constitutional," said Gina Stassi, spokeswoman for the No on 5 campaign.

The No on 5 group, funded primarily by Nevada casino interests worried about new, out-of-state competition, raised about $30 million to fight the measure.

Cathy Christian, attorney for the No on 5 campaign, declined to disclose precise details about the lawsuit, but said it would try to prove the measure is unconstitutional. It was not immediately known who would be listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, which might be filed as early as Wednesday.

With the passage of Proposition 5, other gambling interests like racetrack and card club owners in California vowed to seek expanded gambling authority through the legislature or a ballot initiative.

Opponents had warned that the measure would lead to the spread of unregulated, untaxed gambling statewide and they saturated the airwaves with TV ads with that message. The tribes denied the charges in their own ads, which painted a picture of impoverished Indians whose lives were turning around thanks to gambling.

Proposition 5 was designed to allow the state's 107 tribes to operate as many slot machines as they wanted and to enter into gambling compacts with the governor on the tribes' terms. The compacts will go into effect 30 days after being presented to the governor, so the opposition coalition must act quickly if it is to halt the measure's implementation.

Propositions go into effect the day after passage and the tribes were expected to present their compacts to the governor quickly.

Proposition 5 was introduced to counter Wilson's push to get tribes to join a compromise compact he reached with the Pala Band of Mission Indians earlier this year.

The Pala agreement allowed slot-like electronic devices that are actually high-speed versions of the California Lottery, and also required tribes to abide by other guidelines set by Wilson.

The Palas have yet to open a casino, but 10 other tribes - some with and some without casinos - have since signed similar versions of the same compact.

Wilson said the tribes needed to sign compacts with him, as required under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, if they wanted to continue running casinos. Yet many of the tribes contended he hadn't negotiated in good faith with them.

A coalition of 86 of the state's tribes vociferously opposed the Pala compact and launched their own measure as a way to keep casinos operating on some 40 reservations.

Without Proposition 5, the gambling tribes faced possible forfeiture of their video slot machines to federal authorities.