Distortions on Prop. 1A

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians claims that distortions are being made by those, including The Times, who oppose Proposition 1A, the Indian gambling measure. The band’s arguments were in an “open letter” to voters in the form of a full-page newspaper advertisement this week. Actually, the distortions are being perpetuated by supporters of Proposition 1A, and their statements risk confusing the voters.

The measure would give California a casino gambling industry that experts say would be second only to Nevada in dollar volume--far more than the “modest” increase that was promised when Gov. Gray Davis signed compacts with 57 tribes last September. The compacts would become effective upon passage of Proposition 1A.

--The San Manuel Band ad says opponents’ figure of potentially 113,000 slot machines was distorted and that there actually would be only a few more casinos than the 41 in operation now.

The 113,000 figure was computed by the respected state legislative analyst; Davis says it would be only about 43,000. No one is certain. More slots and casinos could be added in compact renegotiations authorized for early 2003.

--The ad says that opponents are incorrectly claiming that Proposition 1A would open the state to poorly regulated casino operations even though, it says, under Proposition 5--which The Times and some other Proposition 1A opponents supported--there was no regulatory role for the state.

The regulations are in the compacts, not in Proposition 5--or even in Proposition 1A. Legal experts say state control under 1A would be less restrictive than in Nevada and other Indian gambling states. In California, for instance, unlike in Nevada, 18-year-olds would be legally welcome in the casinos.

--The ad argues that those who oppose Proposition 1A don’t really support tribal sovereignty.

It’s not inconsistent to support sovereignty and oppose Proposition 1A. The impact and consequence of Nevada-style gambling go far beyond tribal boundaries. The tribes and Davis had the opportunity, after the courts disallowed Proposition 5, to arrive at a more measured increase in Indian gambling. Instead, we are faced with the sweeping, unsupportable Proposition 1A.