1998 Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum Statute.
	Argument in Favor of Proposition 29

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Proposition 29 continues a well-reasoned agreement on Indian gambling. Like it or not, federal law required our State and California Indian Tribes to negotiate gambling Compacts.

It took 17 months of intensive negotiations to develop meaningful and fair guidelines for Indian gambling, as required by federal law.

The 1998 Compacts were passed by the Legislature, signed by many Tribes, widely approved by the press, and are workable agreements for both California and the Tribes. Everyone was pleased, except a few wealthy Tribes that were operating (and still operate) illegal casinos.

Some of these wealthy Tribes spent $2.5 million in an effort to nullify the 1998 Compacts. Their ultimate goal is to bring Nevada-style casinos to California by defeating Proposition 29 (thus nullifying the 1998 Compacts) and then enacting Proposition 1A.

• The 1998 Compacts limit the total number of California slot machines to 19,900, less than half the 42,000 slot machines allowed under Proposition 1A. Without the protection of the 1998 Compacts, California will become a "Las Vegas-by-the-Sea."
• The 1998 Compacts ban banking games, such as blackjack. Proposition 1A allows these "banking and percentage card games," but only in Indian casinos.
• The 1998 Compacts do not allow patrons to gamble on credit in Indian casinos. Proposition 1A permits gambling on credit.
• The 1998 Compacts clearly spell out local controls by citizens over casino locations, guarantees workers' rights, licensing procedures, background checks, etc. These are modest, enforceable controls that will benefit all of society, not just the casino owners. The 1998 Compacts are far superior to the provisions of Proposition 1A.
• The 1998 Compacts provide for a transitional period for the Tribes to enter into Economic Development Zones in order to become self-sufficient through legitimate, non-gambling businesses, with less reliance on gambling.
• The 1998 Compacts expire after a maximum transition period of 20 years. Without Proposition 29, the way is cleared for wide-open, full-fledged casino gambling in California. To continue the reasonable, workable and fair protections of the 1998 Compacts, vote YES on Proposition 29.

A YES vote on Proposition 29 represents safeguards for both California and the Tribes.

Art Croney
Executive Director, Committee on Moral Concerns

Harvey N. Chinn
California Director, National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion

Cheryl A. Schmit
Co-Chair, Stand Up for California

Proposition 29 | Vote 2000 Home | Next - Prop30 | Secretary of State Home |