Opinion ID: 4561572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Litigation

Text: While this case was pending before us, we granted review in another matter that also presents the question whether the Governor has the power to concur. In Stand Up for California! v. State of California (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 686 (Stand Up!), the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that the Governor lacked such authority, at least given the specific facts as alleged in that case. 14 UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE AUBURN RANCHERIA v. NEWSOM Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., dissenting In Stand Up!, the Governor issued a concurrence in connection with an off-reservation casino proposed by the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and negotiated a compact for gaming operations by the tribe. The offreservation land where the casino would be situated was then taken into trust by the federal government. Unlike here, the Legislature ratified the compact that the Governor had negotiated. But the compact was made subject to a voter referendum (Proposition 48) at the November 2014 election, at which time it was rejected by the voters. (See Stand Up!, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 691–694 [recounting these events].) All three justices on the Stand Up! panel concluded that under the circumstances, the Governor lacked the authority to concur with the Secretary’s two-part determination. Justice Smith, emphasizing that voters had rejected the gaming compact the Governor had negotiated, determined that “it would be perverse to find the Governor has an implied authority based on an express power [to compact] that the state has finally decided not to exercise, after protracted consideration by the Governor, the Legislature, and the voters.” (Stand Up!, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 700.)