Tribal Casinos Should Ante Up, Voters Say

A strong majority of Californians believes Indian tribes that own casinos should pay more of their gambling revenue to the state, and does not want card rooms and horse tracks to gain slot machines, a Los Angeles Times poll shows.

And regardless of political party affiliation, age, gender or churchgoing habits, California residents have a favorable view of tribes that have casinos and continue to approve of gambling on tribal land. A sizable minority -- 40% -- said they or a family member had visited an Indian casino in the past year.

The findings come four years after voters overwhelmingly approved gambling on Indian reservations. Now, gambling interests are preparing for an initiative war that could break the tribes’ monopoly on Nevada-style casinos. In addition, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is negotiating with tribes to get heftier payments for the state in exchange for the right to obtain more slot machines.

Registered voters polled April 17 to 21 said they supported Schwarzenegger’s effort 63% to 29%. They oppose, by 59% to 33%, allowing slot machines at card rooms and racetracks.

Currently, slot machines -- the most profitable game for casino owners -- are legal in California only in Indian casinos. Each tribe may have 2,000 slots under the terms of compacts between the tribes and the state.

Fifty-three of the state’s 107 tribes have licenses to operate 62,000 slot machines. Those with large casinos are required to pay roughly $130 million a year into two funds to aid tribes that have small gambling operations or none, and to ease local effects of their casinos.

Card rooms and racetracks are pushing an initiative for the November ballot that would require tribes to pay 25% of their gambling profits -- $1 billion or more a year -- to state and local governments. The initiative also says that if any single tribe refused to abide by its terms, 11 existing card rooms and five racetracks would divide 30,000 slot machines.

In exchange, those businesses would pay 33% of their casino profits, or an estimated $1 billion annually, to state and local governments, with the bulk of it earmarked for police and fire services and education-related programs.

In their first television ads, airing now and featuring the image of a Monopoly-like game board, the racetracks and card rooms don’t mention their initiative. Nor do they say they are seeking slot machines.

The Times survey, which according to polling director Susan Pinkus has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, did not address such details.

Nor did it ask the 1,571 respondents about a second proposed gambling initiative, promoted by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, owners of casinos in and near Palm Springs. That measure, also intended for the November ballot, would allow unlimited expansion of gambling on Indian land and require that tribes pay 8.84% of their net revenue to the state.

The strong support for Indian gambling is evident despite the criticism tribes received during last fall’s recall campaign. A handful of Indian groups spent more than $12 million then on efforts to block Schwarzenegger’s election. Schwarzenegger aired television ads critical of them for not paying their “fair share” to the state -- a theme repeated in current television spots financed by card rooms and racetracks.

One poll respondent, Ted Wilson, 79, a Democrat in the Central Valley town of Visalia, said in an interview that he recently visited Reno and a tribal casino in the Sierra foothills near Madera, Calif. Although he does not oppose gambling, he said, card rooms and racetracks should not gain slot machines.

“I feel [Indians] finally found some way to get a decent living,” Wilson said. “What is wrong with how it is now? It seems pretty well-regulated as it is.”

Another respondent, Evelyn, a 46-year-old Democrat who asked that her last name not be used, is among those who believe tribes should pay a larger share to the state “because they are making so much money.”

A public schoolteacher in Los Angeles who occasionally visits casinos in Nevada, she said she trusts Schwarzenegger to negotiate an acceptable deal. “I know people give him a hard time for not having experience,” she said. “But I really do believe he knows what he is doing as far as business.”

Schwarzenegger’s aides and attorneys for several tribes have been meeting in an effort to forge a new pact. While few details have emerged, administration and tribal representatives have said the tribes would pay the state $500 million a year and win the right to unlimited expansion of casinos on their land. In addition, they would give the state a one-time payment of $1 billion to help close California’s $14-billion budget gap.

Political experts are not surprised by the poll findings. People believe Indians got “a fundamentally bad deal” from the government, said Republican consultant Wayne Johnson, who is not involved in the current initiative campaign. “They got the last little piece of the worst land after being hunted down by the government.”

But voters are “not interested in wide-open gambling,” Johnson said. They endorse Schwarzenegger’s negotiations with the tribes because they believe the governor is “actually trying to solve problems,” said Johnson, who worked against an Indian-backed initiative in 1998 that would have legalized gambling on tribal land. “They have a fundamental trust that the end result will be fair, that he is not going to go overboard.”

According to the poll, approval of Indian gambling is especially high among adults ages 18 to 29.

Young adults also are the one demographic group that would support slot machines in card rooms and at racetracks, embracing the concept by a 49% to 41% plurality.

All other age groups oppose such an expansion. People ages 45 to 64, for example, oppose slot machines in card rooms and horse tracks, 60% to 32%.

Young adults also were strongest in supporting the right of Indians to own casinos on their land, backing them 75% to 15%. Support tails off somewhat among people 65 and older, although it remains strong, at 62% to 31%.

California voters twice have approved Indian gambling, first when they passed the 1998 initiative to legalize it by 62% to 38%.

The state Supreme Court struck down that measure, leading to another proposition in 2000 that ratified the tribes’ gambling compacts with the state by a vote of 64.5% to 35.5%.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

California outlook

Q: What is your impression of Indian tribes that own gambling casinos in California?

*--* All Californians Dem. Ind. Rep. Favorable 55% 65% 53% 47% Unfavorable 26% 19 28 42 Don’t know 19% 16 19 11

*--*

Q: Four years ago California voters approved Nevada-style gambling on Indian lands. As of today, do you approve or disapprove of gambling casinos on Indian lands?

*--* All voters Dem. Ind. Rep. Approve 69% 76 76 58 Disapprove 24% 17 18 35 Don’t know 7% 7 6 7

*--*

Q: There is a petition circulating in the state to put an initiative on the ballot to expand Nevada-style gambling beyond Indian casinos to card clubs and racetracks. Would you approve or disapprove of this?

*--* All voters Dem. Ind. Rep. Approve 33% 31% 48% 30% Disapprove 59% 58 47 64 Don’t know 8% 11 5 6

*--*

Q: Would you favor or oppose the governor renegotiating contracts with Indian tribes who have casinos on their land in return for more slot machines in those casinos?

*--* All voters Dem. Ind. Rep. Favor 63% 57% 75% 71% Oppose 29% 33 20 24 Don’t know 8% 10 5 5

*--*

*

How the Poll Was Conducted

The Los Angeles Times Poll contacted 1,571 California residents, including 1,265 registered voters, by telephone April 17 through 21, 2004. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the state. Random digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and unlisted numbers were contacted. The sample of all California adults was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and registration figures from the Secretary of State’s office. The margin of sampling error for all adults and registered voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.