Opinion ID: 1160930
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Conflicts Leading up to Proposition 5

Text: Despite IGRA's negotiation and compact framework, several unresolved conflicts have developed between the State of California and Indian tribes surrounding class III gaming and, especially, gaming devices in casinos. Class III gaming, comprising all gaming outside class I and class II, including parimutuel horse race wagering, lotteries, banked table games and gaming devices, is, unquestionably, the most lucrative kind. ( U.S. v. Spokane Tribe of Indians (9th Cir.1998) 139 F.3d 1297, 1299.) The most notable conflict is that underlying Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Ind. v. Wilson (9th Cir.1994) 64 F.3d 1250. Pursuant to IGRA, several Indian tribes requested the State of California to negotiate compacts permitting standalone electronic gaming devices and live banking and percentage card games. ( Id at p. 1255, fns. omitted.) The state refused, asserting that its criminal law prohibited the games and devices in question. The state and certain tribes agreed to seek judicial determination through a test case whether the state was obligated to enter into negotiations concerning such games and devices; pursuant to that stipulation, the tribes initiated an action in federal district court for declaratory relief against the state. ( Ibid. ) The district court gave summary judgment to the plaintiff tribes, concluding that, except for games using traditional casino game themes, the state was indeed obliged to negotiate over the games and devices in question. ( Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Ind. v. Wilson, supra, 64 F.3d at p. 1255.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in large part, concluding that, because California prohibited anyone in the state to engage in banked or percentage card games or operation of slot machines ([w]ith the possible exception of slot machines in the form of video lottery terminals ( id. at p. 1260)), IGRA did not require the state to negotiate a compact allowing those activities to be conducted in tribal gaming facilities. ( Id at pp. 1256-1258.) On remand, the district court determined California law did not permit slot machines in the form of California State Lottery terminals or otherwise, and ordered judgment for the defendants. ( Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Ind. v. Wilson (E.D.Cal.1998) 39 F.Supp.2d 1227.) While the above proceedings and those leading to this court's 1996 decision in Western Telcon, supra, 13 Cal.4th 475, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 812, 917 P.2d 651, were pending, a number of the tribes commenced and continued class III gaming activities without tribal/state compacts; in response, Governor Wilson refused to negotiate further until they ceased such gaming activities. (See Note, Western Telcon v. California State Lottery; Will Native Americans Lose Again? (1997) 19 Thomas Jefferson L.Rev. 361, 374-376.) Governor Wilson instead negotiated a compact with the Pala Band of Mission Indians, a tribe previously without gaming facilities, which he intended to serve as a statewide model. In part because of objections to the negotiation procedures and in part because of restrictions the Pala compact placed on the type and number of gaming devices, most of the tribes with existing casinos rejected the Pala compact. (See Comment, The Effect of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on California Native American's Independence (1998) 35 San Diego L.Rev. 179, 198-201). It was to resolve such conflicts between the State of California and Indian tribes relative to class III gaming on Indian lands that Proposition 5 was drafted and circulated by petition. (See Gov.Code, § 98001, subd. (b) [measure intended to end uncertainties regarding class III gaming by tribes.]) That the initiative measure might not meet its purpose was known before the election: after the measure qualified for the ballot, but prior to the election, the Legislative Counsel issued an opinion concluding, inter alia, that the measure would be invalid under section 19(e) because it would authorize casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey. (Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No. 21947 (Oct. 8, 1998) Tribal Gaming: Proposition 5, pp. 8-14, 17-18.) At the election the people nevertheless approved the measure.