State Should Hedge This Bet

The mad rush to turn California into another gamblers’ paradise like Nevada has cooled considerably in recent months. And that’s good news for California. There is now a hiatus in the authorization of new Nevada-style gambling casinos while the 2000 ballot initiative is tested in the federal courts. That gives the state time to weigh the impact so far and to consider just how much casino gambling it wants and where.

Gov. Gray Davis negotiated compacts with 61 California tribes in 1999 that allowed them to establish casinos featuring Nevada-style slot machines and card games. Thirty-eight of those tribes already had some sort of gambling operation, but with cumbersome lottery-type slots rather than the old-fashioned Nevada-type machines, the casinos’ most lucrative money-makers. The compacts went into effect with the passage of Proposition 1-a in the 2000 primary election.

The compacts allowed tribes that already had gambling to operate as many as 2,000 slot machines, plus poker and blackjack card games, but not roulette or craps. Some of the larger tribes contracted with big casino operators to help them build and manage Las Vegas-style gambling palaces.

Davis pledged to allow only a moderate increase in gambling in California and opposed the expansion of casinos into urban areas. Davis claimed that the compacts only allowed for a total of about 45,000 slot machines, while other estimates ran as high as 113,000. The tribes won’t say, but it now appears there are about 47,000 licensed slots.

Remote rural tribes looked for ways to locate casinos in cities hundreds of miles away. One band even got Congress to pass a law giving it a new “reservation” in the form of an existing card club in San Pablo, a San Francisco suburb.

Controversy simmered over just how much authority state regulators have over tribal casinos. Some local governments objected to casino plans that foisted huge impositions on the surrounding communities in terms of traffic, policing and water and sewage facilities. Other tribes have worked closely and cooperatively with local government on those issues.

Now the the non-Indian card clubs are challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 1-a in federal District Court. The suit is not expected to succeed, according to pro-gambling legal experts, but Davis has used this opportunity to put a moratorium on new gambling compacts. At least nine tribes seeking compacts have been put on hold pending the outcome of the lawsuit. The first hearing is not scheduled until early September.

No legal injunction bars Davis from signing more compacts with tribes. One observer says he seems to be seeking “a comfort zone” of just how much casino gambling is justified or good for California.

We applaud his decision, although we urge Davis to conduct some open discourse on the issue. Generally, the state should limit casinos to existing tribal lands, which are mostly in rural areas.

Drawing such lines will not be easy. Part of the answer may lie in careful negotiation. The tribes and state gambling commission have indicated a willingness to jointly draft guidelines for issuing slot machine licenses, auditing casino receipts and dealing with other issues. That’s fine if the rules are firm and not subject to exceptions that might be influenced by big tribal campaign contributions. California must insist on its legitimate role as regulator of casino gambling.