SACRAMENTO -- The latest poll shows the contest is getting tighter and both sides are keeping up the attack in the battle over Proposition Five, the Indian gambling initiative.
But the two sides apparently won't face each other in a televised debate this weekend in Palm Springs as proposed by the California Broadcasters Association for stations statewide.
The debate proposal foundered over the insistence of the Yes on Five campaign that opponents be represented by an executive from one of the Nevada casinos, which are funding the 98 percent of No on Five campaign.
"Without the opportunity to hold the Nevada casinos responsible for the multi-million-dollar, anti-Indian scare tactic campaign underway against Proposition Five, we must respectfully and regretfully decline your invitation," Ken Ramirez, chair of Yes on Five, wrote the broadcast group in a letter dated Sept. 30. The letter was released Tuesday.
The No on Five campaign showed no interest Tuesday in providing a casino executive.
"We're happy to have a debate about the issues," said Frank Schubert, a political consultant for opponents. "We will show up with our spokesperson. If they don't show, we'll have plenty of time to tell our side of the story."
But Mark Powers of the broadcasters association said it would be pointless to stage such a program unless both sides agree on the format and show up.
"As far as we've been heard from everybody involved, there won't be one," Powers said of a Proposition Five debate.
The latest Field Poll, published Tuesday, showed that 48 percent of likely voters surveyed support the measure, 30 percent oppose it and 22 percent are undecided after being read a summary of the official ballot label.
That compares to a Field Poll in August when 53 percent supported the initiative, 28 percent opposed it and 19 percent were undecided.
"It's quite good news for us," Schubert said of the Field Poll. "Once you lose ground in a race like this, it's difficult to make it up. They have got everybody that they are going to get."
But Steve Glazer of Yes on Five said the poll shows that there really has been little change in the split between supporters and opponents even as the awareness of the measure among voters has increased, especially within the margin of error of 5.4 percent.
"There is an 88 percent awareness of our measure (in the Field Poll), so both sides in these final three weeks are dealing with an electorate that is pretty well informed and locked into their view," Glazer said.
Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll said the 22 percent undecided is "unusually high" in a contest where so many voters are aware of the initiative.
There were far more voters aware of Proposition Five than four other initiatives covered in the survey conducted Sept. 27-Oct. 5.
"I would say voters are having a tough time sorting out Proposition Five," DiCamillo said.
One of the complicated issues about Proposition Five that continues to surface in this contest is the legality of the initiative. This week opponents released a legal opinion by the office of Legislative Counsel Bion Gregory that said the measure is unconstitutional.
He had prepared the opinion at the request of Assemblyman Bernie Richter, R-Chico, an opponent of the initiative, who gave to the No on Five campaign.
Gregory concluded that the initiative is unconstitutional because it allows banking games and percentage games, which, he said, would violate the state constitution's prohibition on "casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey."
He said this section, if found unconstitutional by the courts, would invalidate the whole measure. But he cited other provisions that could be thrown out by the courts without killing the entire initiative. These include sections that, he said, improperly allow tribes to operate games without negotiated state agreements and restrict the governor's power while expanding that of the Legislature.
"Voters again face a choice between rejecting a flawed initiative, or approving it only to see a lengthy, expensive court battle that appears certain to overturn this measure," Cathy Christian, attorney for the No on Five campaign.
Glazer responded that opponents unsuccessfully tried to persuade state appellate and supreme courts to throw the initiative off the ballot, based on arguments similar to those used by Gregory.
"It would be insulting to California voters if the Nevada casinos waged a legal challenge to Proposition Five after it had been approved by voters on Nov. 3rd," Glazer added.
He also questioned the value of Gregory's opinion, saying that he previously had opined that "term limits was unconstitutional, and he was proven wrong."
Proponents of the initiative continue to make their case for its passage by emphasizing, in personal terms, what it means for tribes. The latest effort in this effort was the release of a nearly 30 minute video of interviews with tribal leaders as well members of nearby communities.