Indian gaming, public opinion, & policy in california presented at the University of California, Irvine UROP Symposium by Ronald R. Baldonado May 14, 2005.

indian gaming, public opinion, & policy in california

presented at the

University of California, Irvine

UROP Symposiumby

Ronald R. BaldonadoMay 14, 2005

purpose/objective

Qualitative study examining the connections and relationships between Indian gaming, public opinion, and public policy in California

Dynamic issue affecting the future of the state

introduction

introduction

Native Americans were forced off their lands and placed in reservations as “outcast members of sovereign alien nations.” (Barker and Britz 2000)

Resulted in extreme poverty, low incomes, and high levels of unemployment, poor education, inferior housing, and high tendencies of suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse (Barker and Britz 2000)

introduction

1970s and 1980s – Advent of Indian gaming Economic self-sufficiency and “Indian

self-reliance” California v. Cabazon Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 CA Proposition 5 (1998); Proposition 1A

(2000); Propositions 68 and 70 (2004) Arnold Schwarzenegger and “Fair share”

some quick factsSource: National Indian Gaming Association Library and Resource Center

Total number of federally-recognized Indian Tribes: 562

Number of Tribal Governments engaged in gaming: 224

Tribal Governmental gaming revenue in 2002: $14.5 billion (21% of total gaming industry)

Source: California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA)

Total number of compacts in CA: 62 Total number of federally-recognized tribes

in CA: 107

methods

Archival Research: legislative decisions, public opinion polls, voter trends

In-depth informant interviews [n =16 ] Indian Gaming Tribal Council Members [n=8] Legislative Staff Members from the CA State

Assembly and Senate [n=2] Representatives from the Office of Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger [n=2] California Nations Indian Gaming Association

Representatives (CNIGA) [n=3] Experts/Scholars [n=1]

methods

Sample of Standard Questions: How would you characterize the current state of

Indian gaming regulation in California? What do you believe is an appropriate policy

concerning the scope and style of gambling in California?

Do you believe that the regulation of gambling is changing? If so, how?

How should revenue sharing be decided?

results

“[Indian gaming] cuts across different philosophies. Some don’t like any gaming or the unionization of it. Issues cut across different ideologies and philosophies. As you dig more into issues, it gets more complex.”

– State Assembly Legislative Staff Member

results – views on expansion

Office of the Governor

State

Legislature

General Public Opinion

Native Americans

“Californians didn’t vote for

the ‘Nevadatization’ of California.”

Lytton Compact “Two-thirds approval of

‘Nevada-style gaming’ on Indian lands

only.(LA Times Poll)

Expansion should be driven by

market forces

results – views on taxation

Office of Governor

State

Legislature

General

Public Opinion

Native Americans

“Corporate Tax (8.84%) is

misleading.”

To decide taxation, must

take into account: 1) demands of

infrastructure; 2) likely impacts;

and 3) prospects of earning money

“Contribution rate should be more

than the corporate tax. Each compact

needs to consider the

unique attributes of each tribe. A one size fits all

mentality doesn’t work.”

“A strong majority of

Californians believe Indian tribes that own casinos should

pay more of their gambling

revenue to the state.”

63% support compact renegotiation

(LA Times – 4/2004)

Corporate Tax versus

25%

results – office of the governor

“[The Governor’s Office] is respectful of tribal sovereignty, but it does not mean it would enter into compacts that do not benefit Californians who patronize these establishments. [We] will continue to seek to do what we feel is in the best interests of Californians.”

- Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

conclusion

Inconsistent views on taxation, regulation, etc. among gaming tribes

Obvious disparities Superficial appearance of neutrality

and unity Closer analysis reveals a diversity of

opinions and the emergence of special interests

future research directions

Revenue sharing among both big and small Native American tribes; “Special funds distribution”

Indian gaming and effects relating to the environment, crime, etc. in surrounding communities public policy considerations

acknowledgements

Special THANKS to: Professor John Dombrink Professor Valerie Jenness Social Ecology Honors Students Professor William N. Thompson - UNLV California Nations Indian Gaming Association National Indian Gaming Association Ricky Chavez Parents, Sister, and Friends Funding provided by:

The Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program

for further information

Please send inquires to:

[email protected] R. Baldonado

Department of Criminology, Law & Society

Social Ecology Honors Program

University of California, Irvine