Editorial: State-negotiated compact best path for tribal gaming

Monday, Aug. 30, 1999 | 9:13 a.m.

The California state Supreme Court's decision last Monday to invalidate Proposition 5, the Indian gambling initiative, was widely anticipated. Because it was "purely a statutory measure," the justices ruled, it could not overcome the state constitution's prohibition against casino gambling.

As welcome as it is, the court's decision does not end the controversy. Slot machines continue to operate illegally in Indian casinos across the state. The federal government refuses, for now, to enforce the law and shut them down. In addition, the most aggressive of the gambling tribes are circulating a new initiative, this one a constitutional amendment they claim will overcome the Supreme Court's objections.

For those who want to limit gambling in California, the most hopeful developments last week came in the Legislature. Minutes after the high court overturned Prop. 5, a Senate constitutional amendment, SCA 11, was introduced and passed off the Senate floor unanimously. Authored by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, SCA 11 is an empty shell now, but it is expected to be filled in with the outlines of a model Indian gambling compact for the state before the Legislature adjourns next month.

If SCA 11 makes the March ballot, as anticipated, it will probably compete with the new Indian gambling initiative already in circulation. Astute observers say the new initiative -- being pushed by the tribes and the same army of consultants who made a bundle off Prop. -- won't survive a constitutional challenge. Here's why:

When Congress approved the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, it required state governors to negotiate compacts with gambling tribes. To compel a governor to simply sign a compact drawn up by Indian casino operators -- as Prop. 5 did and the planned new initiative proposes -- would be a violation of the state and federal constitutional principal of separation of powers. Moreover, critics argue, a compact is not a valid subject for an initiative.

Gambling is bad for California. The state's economy is better built on the likes of agriculture, high-tech and entertainment than on slot machines and bingo. Still, if gambling must be allowed on Indian lands, an agreement negotiated by the governor and the Legislature that limits the scope of gambling as much as possible and that considers the interests of the wider public is clearly preferable to an initiative pushed by gambling tribes and their greedy consultants.

-- Sacramento Bee