**Click here for the latest news on Native gaming and Proposition 5**
(California's Modern Indian War)
Los Angeles Times
Thursday, July 30, 1998
A Section
State Tribal Casino Debate Spills Over on U.S. Panel
The debate over Indian casino gambling in California carried over
Wednesday to a hearing of a federal commission studying the impact of
gambling nationwide--though that panel can do little to address the
divisiveness of the issue in California.
Much of the day's hearing, which attracted about 500 people, was given
over to tribal leaders testifying that casino gambling has brought
economic prosperity and the hope of continued economic growth to their
reservations.
Gov. Pete Wilson's legal affairs advisor countered that the tribes'
progress has come by violating state laws that ban some of the casino
games the tribes operate.
At one point, an attorney who represents several California tribes
blamed a federal law that, he said, has allowed the issue to evolve so
contentiously in California.
"What's happening in California is a symptom of what's wrong" with the
federal law, said Howard Dickstein, a Sacramento attorney.
The federal law allows tribes to run the same type of gambling
activities allowed elsewhere in the state, but only after the state and
the tribes come to terms on exactly what kinds of gambling can occur and
how it is to be regulated.
California bans the kinds of slot machines and house-banked games
common in Nevada--but voters in 1984 approved the state's Lottery.
Lottery-based games are the only ones that Wilson has said he will allow
on reservation land.
The problem in California, Dickstein said, is that even before
so-called compacts were signed between the tribes and the state, as
mandated by the federal law, many tribes began running games that they
deemed legal even without state permission. As video technology
developed, gaming devices evolved into the types of machines that the
state considers illegal.
The governor complained, but the tribes persisted--and federal
authorities, who have jurisdiction over Indian gambling, generally did
nothing. "Even the federal government was confused about what may or may
not be legal," Dickstein said.
As a result, Dickstein told members of the National Gambling Impact
Study Commission, many tribes have run their existing casino operations
so long that they don't want to defer to state authorities on the types
of gambling they can offer.
"It's very difficult," he said, "to put the horses back in the barn."
The issue will come to a head in November, when state voters cast
ballots on Proposition 5, an initiative sponsored by many Indian tribes
to legalize the kinds of casino games they now offer, and to allow their
proliferation without the approval of the governor or the Legislature.
That vote will occur long before the national gambling commission,
which is holding hearings across the country, forwards its findings to
Congress.
"What is happening in California is a microcosm of what's happening in
the rest of the country," said commission Chairwoman Kay James.
Indeed, the debate over the benefits and liabilities of casinos on
Indian reservations splits even the law enforcement community.
Santa Ana Police Chief Paul M. Walters used Wednesday's hearing to
argue that "California has never confronted a ballot measure with more
serious potential impact on law enforcement than Proposition 5. . . .
Based on previous serious incidents at some existing tribal casino
operations, this initiative will contribute to increased crime,
complicated by the difficulty of enforcing laws on land that is not
officially part of our legal jurisdiction."
But a letter written by Palm Springs Police Chief C. Lee Weigel, which
was submitted to the commission by the Agua Caliente Indians, noted that
"there is no significant change in our calls for service since the Spa
Hotel began their enterprise of casino gaming, nor has crime increased as
a result of the casino."