news story / By Japhet Weeks

Does the house always win?

What you need to know about Propositions 94-97

(Jan. 31, 2008) By Japhet Weeks

Big labor and big gambling are clashing this year in California’s most expensive proposition fight to date. On Feb. 5, voters will decide whether or not to ratify four Indian gaming compacts that were passed by the California state legislature last summer, signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and approved by the federal government.

File Photo

GALLERY >

The compacts would allow four Southern California tribes — the Agua Caliente, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, the Pechanga Band of Luise√±o Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians — to add upwards of 17,000 Nevada-style slot machines to their casinos. In exchange, the tribes would funnel more gambling revenues into the state’s general fund rather than earmarking that money for payments to non-gaming tribes, assistance programs for problem gamblers and local governments affected by the casinos, as previous compacts have done.

According to a report by the California Legislative Analyst, the new slot machines would add at least $131 million to the state’s coffers annually. Over the next two decades that amount could increase to the “low to mid hundreds of millions of dollars, lasting until 2030,” the report said.

Which is why Gov. Schwarzenegger can be seen in Yes for California television ads enthusiastically touting the “billions and billions of dahllas” that will help pull California out of its sinking debt. The top donors for the “Yes” campaign — who have already spent $21 million on television ads alone — are the four Southern California tribes who will benefit from passage of the gaming compacts.

The top two donors for the other side — No on the Unfair Gambling Deals — are United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria and the Pala Band of Mission Indians. They’re worried that expansion by the four tribes will significantly cut into their own business. The third largest donor is Unite HERE, a union group that has given $3 million to defeat the compacts, which they claim will hamper unionization at the four tribes’ casinos. Specifically, the new compacts fail to provide casino workers with a “card check,” which allows workers to unionize simply by collecting a majority of signatures, regardless of whether or not the tribe agrees. Under the new compacts, casino workers would be allowed to unionize, but by secret ballot only. Unions generally don’t like the secret ballot method, because it gives employers warning that a drive is underway and therefore allows them an opportunity to counter it.

John Travis, a professor of political science at Humboldt State and a board member of the California Faculty Association, says he’s voting no on Props 94-97. His main concern is that the compacts make unionization difficult. But he also argues that the compacts fail to provide adequate oversight for casino operations, ultimately leaving it up to the tribes to determine how much money to give to the state. The Legislative Analyst’s report, however, suggests otherwise, noting that the compacts require independent audits.

Still, Travis says, the revenues the new compacts will generate are not a panacea for California’s many budget woes. “When you think about the size of the dilemma that we’re facing this year, that [revenues from the compacts] doesn’t make a big dent in it,” he said last week.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE >SHARE