Tribes, Utilities Prevail in Costly Battles; 1A Wins

California Indian tribes, whose campaign for Proposition 5 was the costliest single-issue contest in U.S. political history, hit the jackpot Tuesday with a decisive victory for their casino gambling initiative.

Voters rejected another measure that was the subject of an expensive advertising campaign, Proposition 9, which called for an electricity rate cutback and an end to nuclear power subsidies. Utility firms spent more than $40 million to defeat the measure. The fate of a third high-profile initiative, Proposition 10, which sought a 50-cents-per-pack cigarette surtax, was undecided late into the night.

Proposition 1A, a $9.2-billion school construction and repair bond issue, won handily, but Proposition 8, which called for permanent class size reductions in the primary grades and the creation of a statewide schools inspector, was defeated.

Two measures dealing with animal welfare--Proposition 4, to ban the use of certain kinds of animal traps and poisons, and Proposition 6, to prohibit the sale of horse meat for human consumption, were leading comfortably.

Proposition 7, which would have rewarded diesel pollution cutbacks with tax credits, and Proposition 3, which would have limited the state’s presidential primary to party-registered voters, were headed for defeat.

With California voters apparently wanting to cling to blanket primaries, the state’s preferences for presidents might instead have to be decided by closed party caucuses or party conventions.

The strong level of voter support for the Indian gaming measure--which would allow the expansion of reservation gambling across California without the state’s approval--pleased the tribes’ campaign strategists.

“The public has spoken with an overwhelming voice and they’re saying, ‘Leave the Indians alone,’ ” said Paul Mandabach, lead consultant to the Yes on 5 campaign.

“Today the people of California have created a true Indian Thanksgiving,” added Dan Tucker, a member of the Sycuan tribe in San Diego and president of the California Nations Indian Gaming Assn.

Buoyed by the results, leaders of the Agua Caliente tribe in Palm Springs said they would ask Gov. Pete Wilson today to implement the measure, which allows Indians to maintain and expand the kinds of casinos they have been operating for years without the state’s blessing.

If Proposition 5 is upheld in court, observers predict that the Palm Springs area--home to four Indian casinos--may ultimately develop as the closest thing California has to a Las Vegas.

Proposition 5 allows slot machines without pull-arms and coin dispensers, but does not allow such classic Nevada trappings as roulette wheels and craps tables.

But the casino measure is expected to face a stiff legal challenge because the state constitution bans “Nevada-style” casinos and because it is unclear whether Wilson can be required, as the state’s executive officer, to sign gambling compacts which he opposes.

The battle over Proposition 5--stoked by at least $95 million in campaign contributions--began last spring as a protest against regulations announced by Wilson for the operation of Indian casinos.

While Wilson struck agreements with 11 tribes that included restrictions on the type and number of video gambling machines they could operate, most tribes bristled at the rules. They responded by drafting the ballot measure, casino guidelines written by the tribes themselves and allowing for, among other things, an unrestricted number of machines in each gambling hall.

Proponents of Proposition 5 qualified the gaming initiative for the ballot in record time, using TV and direct mail. By campaign’s end, they anted up more than $69 million to win voter approval.

While their message was steeped in such mantras as Indian sovereignty and Indian self-reliance, what also was at stake was money. Lots of money.

The 41 Indian casinos in California generated an estimated $632 million in net profit in 1997--most of it from slot machines operated without the state’s blessing.

Opponents of the measure countered that tribal gambling halls should be subject not only to federal regulations--as they already are--but also to state guidelines. But most of the No on 5 campaign funds--about $26 million--came from another group with a large economic interest in the issue: Las Vegas casino operators, apprehensive about losing gamblers to California tribal casinos.

The net result was a blockbuster battle of television commercials. Their effectiveness will long be debated by the experts.

Both sides on Proposition 5 succeeded in debating the issue effectively in 30-second sound bites, said initiative expert Robert M. Stern of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies.

But the Yes on 5 side waged “one of the classic campaigns of all time,” Stern said, “because of the sympathy it generated for Indians. Of course, they had the money to do it.”

Robert Fellmeth, a political science professor at the University of San Diego and director of the Center for Public Interest, faulted both campaigns for being disingenuous by “putting out so much misinformation.”

In addition to funding the Proposition 5 campaign, tribes also poured about $5.6 million into other election races across the state--more than any other interest group in state history.

“The Indians have changed the face of politics in Sacramento,” said Wilson spokesman Sean Walsh. “They are truly a new force to be reckoned with.”

While both sides on Proposition 5 waged major television ad campaigns, that wasn’t the case with Proposition 9, the utilities measure.

Sponsors of the initiative spent roughly $1 million to qualify their measure, leaving them with little money to campaign. In the last few months, the state’s three largest private utilities--Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric-- spearheaded the $40-million-plus effort to fight the proposition, resulting in what observers said was the most imbalanced initiative spending campaign ever.

At issue was an amendment to the landmark 1996 law setting California electrical utilities on a course toward deregulation.

Proposition 9 promised a cut in electricity rates of at least 20%, and called for an end to surcharges being used to pay off about $6 billion in nuclear power plant costs that California’s private utilities now are passing on to their nearly 10 million residential and small commercial customers.

The measure also called for an end to bond payments forced on utility customers to pay off what is widely viewed as a deceptive 10% rate cut they received Jan. 1.

The campaign generated a mind-numbing discussion of electricity rates that left voters baffled after months of debate over such arcane issues as “stranded assets” and rate reduction bonds. To the end, the number of undecided--or confused--voters remained stubbornly high, and in the end, history shows, voters tend to reject measures they do not understand.

“They bought the election,” complained consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield, a coauthor of Proposition 9. “If we had put the 10 Commandments on the ballot and the utilities put up $40 million against it we would have probably lost.”

The No on 9 coalition included the major political parties, educators, labor unions, environmentalists, mayors and other city leaders, and many community organizations.

The opposition to Proposition 10, the 50-cents-a-pack cigarette tax, was funded with about $30 million, mostly from the tobacco industry. Proponents of the surtax--designed to fund child development programs, including child care and parent education--raised more than $9 million.

The measure was sponsored by filmmaker Rob Reiner and supported by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the American cancer, heart and lung associations.

Opponents--including taxpayer organizations and business groups--argued that the per-pack tax was regressive, and complained that the statewide commission that would allocate the tax proceeds lacked oversight by elected officials.