Friday, Nov. 1, 2002 | 9:50 a.m.
PHOENIX -- Indian gambling, touted by supporters as an avenue to prosperity in some of Arizona's poorest places, has become a rich battleground for advocates trying to shape its future here.
The money being poured into campaigns supporting three gambling propositions on the Nov. 5 ballot is in evidence every day as television commercials run seemingly around the clock and gambling ads become a staple in newspapers statewide.
Proponents use images ranging from Indians living in squalor to an "average Joe" wearing an "I-heart-AZ" T-shirt in an effort to sway voters.
So far, supporters of Propositions 200, 201 and 202 have raised roughly $32.2 million to back their campaigns.
As of Sept. 30, backers of Proposition 200, which is supported by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, raised $9.8 million. Proposition 201 supporters, including horse and dog track owners, had collected $3.5 million. Proposition 202, supported by a 17-tribe coalition, had raised $18.85 million.
By comparison, the 10 candidates who ran in this year's gubernatorial primary only took in $6.6 million collectively.
"Gambling measures is where typically the most money is spent. There's a financial incentive to see whether these things pass or fail," said Dane Waters, president of the nonprofit Initiative & Referendum Institute in Washington. He noted roughly $100 million was spent in California when two gambling initiatives were on its 2000 ballot.
All three ballot measures would increase the amount of casino gambling in Arizona, and each promises various amounts of money for state programs, ranging from college scholarships to senior prescription care.
The menu of gambling propositions ended up on the ballot as the result of legal actions, the pending expiration of existing Indian gambling agreements and competing political and business interests.
Under federal law, tribes must negotiate compacts with the state in order to offer conventional slot machines and most other types of gambling. The first of the compacts signed during the 1990s by 15 Arizona tribes begin to expire in August.
Gov. Jane Hull successfully negotiated new compacts with 17 of the state's tribes, but horse and racetrack owners sued in late 2000, saying the governor didn't have the power to sign such deals. The case remains unresolved.
Subsequent attempts to get legislative action this year on gambling failed, and three groups led successful petition drives to put measures on the ballot. If more than one proposition is approved, the one with the most votes will prevail as law. It's unclear what would happen if all three fail.
Proposition 200 is supported by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, which didn't join the other tribes in negotiations with the governor. It wants Indian tribes to have the authority to add 21,492 slot machines along with games not currently allowed, including blackjack, roulette, craps and baccarat.
The CRIT initiative would offer the smallest amount of money to the state, 3 percent of net income. The other initiatives seek larger percentages of revenue, more like a traditional sales tax.
Currently, the state gets no money from the 22 tribal casinos run by 15 Arizona tribes.
Jason Rose, a CRIT spokesman, said the federal law authorizing Indian casinos was never intended to help states balance their budgets or to fund new projects.
"When we're talking about Indian gaming, let's not forget the Indian part," he said. "This leaves the most money for the tribes."
Critics contend the initiative opens the way for Las Vegas-style gambling and less regulation by the state.
Horse and dog racetrack owners also argue that the expansion of gambling offered by 200 and 202 will hurt their businesses, unless they are given the opportunity to add slot machines. That's why they're pushing Proposition 201, which would allow racetracks to operate up to 6,450 slot machines.
"We're requesting that we be allowed to compete on a limited basis to hold our own, to keep our business alive, and to get there, we're willing to tax ourselves at an enormous rate," said Doug Cole, a spokesman for the racetrack owners.
Proposition 201 would tax racetrack slot machines at a 40 percent rate, while Indian casinos would be required to pay an 8-percent tax if they signed compacts expanding their casinos.
The tribes say the racetrack initiative is unreasonable, and some state officials say the federal government, which must sign off on Indian gambling compacts, will never go along with a deal that regulates tribal facilities without giving tribes what amounts to a monopoly.
Backers of 202, which include Hull, say their approach is more balanced. The initiative is nearly identical to the deals negotiated by Hull and 17 tribes before they were hung up by legal action.
Under 202, the number of slot machines would grow, and casinos could add Las Vegas-style house-banked blackjack, which is not allowed under current compacts. In exchange, the tribes would give the state up to 8 percent of revenue, depending on how much the tribes take in.
Much of the most vocal opposition surrounding the propositions has come from supporters of competing measures, but some conservatives are urging voters to defeat all three.
"Gambling is not a solution to any problem," said Cathi Herrod, director of policy for the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative political action group. "It's a separate public policy issue, what needs to be done on the reservations."
archive
