Answers sought in Indian gaming debate

Monday, May 24, 1999 | 11:16 a.m.

The battle to legalize Indian gambling in California has taken place before the voters, in courtrooms and behind closed doors in negotiations between tribal leaders and state officials. The following are some questions and answers about the debate:

Question: What did Proposition 5 do?

Answer: Proposition 5, a ballot initiative approved by 63 percent of California voters in November, would have allowed an unlimited number of video slot machines at tribal casinos and legalized card games like poker and blackjack already available on reservations, despite federal threats to shut the slot machines down. Under the measure, tribes could submit a gambling agreement to the governor that would receive automatic state approval within 30 days, regardless of whether the governor signed it. It would have allowed tribes to begin offering gambling 45 days later unless the U.S. Interior Secretary objected. The state Supreme Court temporarily blocked enforcement of the measure in December before any agreements could take effect. The court has yet to rule on the measure's constitutionality, thus putting its future in limbo.

Q: What's the status of the court proceedings?

A: The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments June 1 on two lawsuits, one by a homeowners association and one by a labor union, challenging Proposition 5's constitutionality. Gov. Gray Davis has not taken a stand on the proposition. His predecessor, Pete Wilson, supported the challenge. A ruling is expected within 90 days of the argument. If Proposition 5 is voided and state officials have not reached an agreement with the tribes, federal authorities could remove slot machines and shut down gambling at tribal casinos. If Proposition 5 is upheld, the measure would become law, essentially allowing the tribes to offer any gambling they want, barring a successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q: What are compact negotiations and where do they stand?

A: Gambling compact negotiations were opened between the state's tribes and a former federal judge Davis appointed to represent him earlier this year. The talks began after the state Supreme Court halted implementation of Proposition 5. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 requires that the state and tribes who want to run casinos sign an agreement known as a gambling compact. Tribes in California have operated without the compact because, in most cases, they claimed former Gov. Pete Wilson was unwilling to negotiate with them. Wilson contended the tribes were running illegal forms of gambling. The former judge, William A. Norris, has met regularly with three separate groups of tribes, and agreements could be reached by June.