No to Gambling Explosion

The Times supports Indian tribal sovereignty in California and the right to operate limited casino gambling. Gambling has been a boon to poorer tribes, boosting employment and freeing tribal members from welfare and other forms of state support. But wide-open Nevada-style casino gambling in California, at estimated revenues of $4 billion a year, would not be good for any segment of the population.

The Times urges voters to reject Proposition 1A on the March 7 ballot. What has been described by state officials as a modest increase in gambling in California would in fact be an exponential expansion of poorly regulated casino operations. Its scale would be exceeded only by Nevada.

When The Times endorsed Proposition 5 in the fall 1998 election, it appeared that the measure provided a reasonable level of tribal gambling. Proposition 5 would have legalized slot machines that operated like a lottery rather than being banked by the casino. Also endorsed were card games similar to those in authorized card rooms in which prizes are paid out from a pool. The casino would be the host for the games but wouldn’t be a player.

Fueled by $63 million in tribal contributions, Proposition 5 easily won voter approval but was ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. As the tribes geared up for another ballot campaign for unlimited gambling powers, Gov. Gray Davis launched private negotiations designed to reach agreement on an acceptable level of gambling. After intense talks, Davis announced agreement last Sept. 10 on a compact with 60 tribes calling for a “modest” increase in gambling.

The Legislature quickly adopted the compact and put Proposition 1A on the ballot. Superficially, it seemed to be a fair deal, allowing a doubling of existing--but technically illegal--slot machines to about 44,000. The pact also authorized Las Vegas-style blackjack and poker tables banked by the casinos. The compacts would be in force upon passage of Proposition 1A.

But serious questions emerged as the 38-page compact was analyzed. The legislative analyst’s office estimated it would in fact authorize as many as 113,000 slots--up to 2,000 per casino--with the possibility of more in the future. That’s more than operate in Las Vegas.

Legal experts have called the pact a mishmash with serious flaws. Nevada casinos, which spent $25 million fighting Proposition 5 in 1998, are not opposing 1A. In fact several Nevada operations have contracts to build and manage casinos for tribes. They include the famed Harrah’s, which has a $100-million contract to build a casino in San Diego County. Similar agreements are expected to be announced if 1A is approved.

The Times also urges Californians to vote no on Proposition 29. This is a referendum that seeks to approve 11 limited casino pacts negotiated by then-Gov. Pete Wilson in 1998. This measure has been rendered irrelevant by subsequent events.

With rejection of Propositions 1A and 29, voters will be telling the governor and Legislature to negotiate a new compact that assures tribes their economic freedom but does not burden California with a massive gambling industry and the social problems that are certain to go with it.