California and the West : Davis Considers Vote to Give Tribes Full Casinos : Gaming: Constitutional amendment being discussed for the March ballot would exempt Indians from the state ban on Las Vegas-style gaming, sources say.

The Davis administration is discussing placing a constitutional amendment on the March ballot to exempt Indian tribes from California’s ban on glitzy Las Vegas-style gambling.

The prospect of full-blown casinos of the sort found in Nevada and New Jersey could be an eventual result. But it is likely that negotiations will deal primarily with the number of slot machines and other games now played at Indian casinos around the state, said sources familiar with the negotiations, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The exact details of the kind of games the tribes could operate would need to be negotiated in “compacts” between Gov. Gray Davis and the Indians separate from the constitutional amendment that may go on the March ballot.

The compacts are subject to approval by the Legislature and could be changed by future governors, lawmakers and tribal leaders.

The broad outlines of a deal emerged Saturday as the Davis administration and tribal leaders prepared for a second closed-door negotiating session scheduled in Sacramento on Tuesday.

In the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling last week that struck down Proposition 5--the Indian gaming initiative overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1998--Davis, legislative leaders and tribal officials began negotiations to allow the Indians to keep open the doors of their $1.7-billion-a-year industry.

Presumably, the Indians would drop their plans for another ballot measure if a deal is struck. The negotiators would like to wrap up a deal before the Legislature adjourns for the year Sept. 10.

“All I can say is that the governor has transmitted a proposed tribal-state gaming compact to the tribes,” Hilary McLean, a Davis spokeswoman, acknowledged Saturday. “The governor would like to see no more than a modest increase in gaming.”

Davis has not spelled out how modest an expansion he would accept.

The sources said that by lifting the curb on casino-style games for the Indians, the amendment would open the door to the tribes having such gambling as blackjack and roulette and sports betting--if not now, then at some future date.

William Campbell, president emeritus of the California Manufacturers Assn., which opposed Proposition 5, said he understood that the negotiations could lead to casino-style gambling for Indians, at least in the future.

“Then it’s wide open. . . . You could do roulette, craps . . . casino-style gambling in California for one segment of society,” said Campbell, a former state senator.

A Sacramento attorney who represents some of the Indian tribes offered a cautionary note.

Attorney Howard Dickstein confirmed that the proposed amendment “would exempt tribes from the prohibition” on casino-style gambling, adding that “it would undo the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.” However, that does not mean the state will experience a massive expansion of gambling, he added.

“Because the law allows people to enter into a contract to do almost anything . . . doesn’t mean the parties have agreed to do everything in the universe that’s legal,” he said.

Dickstein said the talks are in a constant state of flux but that the compacts under consideration are “more limited than Proposition 5.” Moreover, they would last many years, he said, “seeing us through the next two or three governors, at least.”

Under Proposition 5 there was no limit on the number of slot machines statewide, and the tribes could have built additional casinos and added machines without state government or voter approval.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson, who entered into agreements with 11 tribes, sought a statewide cap of about 19,900 machines.

Under compacts negotiated by Wilson, casino employees were guaranteed the right to organize and select the union of their choice and the tribe had to remain neutral. Proposition 5 offered no such organizing protections.

The labor union question could snag the current talks, legislative sources said.

At issue is whether the Indian tribes will allow all employees, including construction workers, to be organized or only permit the casino workers to be organized by labor organizations.

Times staff writer Tom Gorman in Riverside contributed to this story.