Secretary of State      Elections      My Vote Counts      Feedback

Make Your Voice Heard California Statewide November 2, 2004 General Election
HomePropositionsCandidate StatementsVoter Informationblank
  propositions
 
Ballot Measure Summary
   
 
Proposition 1A
   
 
Proposition 59
   
 
Proposition 60
   
 
Proposition 60A
   
 
Proposition 61
   
 
Proposition 62
   
 
Proposition 63
   
 
Proposition 64
   
 
Proposition 65
   
 
Proposition 66
   
 
Proposition 67
   
 
Proposition 68
   
 
Proposition 69
   
 
Proposition 70
   
 
Proposition 71
   
 
Proposition 72
   
 
Bond Overview
   
  Title and Summary | Analysis | Text of Proposed Laws

ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS

Proposition 68

Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion.
Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

ARGUMENT in Favor of
Proposition 68

Can we share some straight talk?

Indian casinos are earning between $5 Billion and $8 Billion per year through a monopoly granted to them by the state of California. Under this monopoly, only Indian casinos can operate slot machines in California. But while the rest of us pay taxes on what we earn, the tribes pay almost nothing on their Billions of earnings- even though they use the same roads, schools, police, and fire and emergency medical services that we all pay for.

Last year, one Indian Casino alone had a slot machine profit of over $300 million and paid no taxes.

It's time Indian Casinos paid their Fair Share.

In Connecticut and New York, Indian casinos pay the state up to a 25% Fair Share of their winnings in exchange for keeping their monopolies.

Proposition 68 says to the Indian Tribes: You can keep your monopoly on slot machines, but only if you pay a 25% Fair Share like the Indian Casinos in Connecticut and New York.

The 25% Fair Share would go to pay for local police and fire services and local programs for abused, neglected, and foster children. The Tribes would also be required to comply with the same political campaign contribution and environmental protection laws that all of us already must comply with.

Proposition 68 actually gives the Indian casinos a choice: If they pay their Fair Share, they keep their monopoly on slot machines. But if they don't, the state will also grant rights to a limited number of locations where gaming already exists.

The Indians would keep operating their slots, but they'd get a little competition. A limited number of card clubs and horseracing tracks where gaming already exists would be allowed to add slot machines to their existing games.

These card clubs and horseracing tracks are located in the cities of: Arcadia, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Compton, Cypress, Gardena, Hawaiian Gardens, Inglewood, and Oceanside in Southern California and in the cities of Albany, Colma, Pacheco, San Bruno, and San Mateo in Northern California. Unlike Indian casinos, the card clubs and racetracks would pay 33% of their revenues from the slot machines to local government.

With California's current budget crisis, we need the money.

According to the state's former Legislative Analyst, Bill Hamm, Proposition 68 will generate nearly $2 Billion every year-monies that will be sent directly to all local governments around the state with all communities benefiting equally.

It isn't fair that the tribes can build casinos wherever they want and make Billions of dollars through a monopoly granted by the state without paying taxes or a Fair Share like the rest of us.

But Proposition 68 is fair. It doesn't take any rights away from the Indian Casinos. But it says that if Indian Casinos won't pay a Fair Share to support local public services like all of us, then they can't keep a state monopoly to themselves. You can't have it both ways.

It's time for the Indian Casinos to pay their Fair Share.

We urge you to Vote YES on Proposition 68.

LEE BACA, Sheriff
County of Los Angeles

LOU BLANAS, Sheriff
County of Sacramento

ROY BURNS, President
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)

REBUTTAL to Argument in Favor of Proposition 68

Proposition 68's promoters-card clubs and race-tracks-are using a bait-and-switch scheme. They want voters to think 68 is about "making the Indian tribes pay their fair share." It's not.

It's really a deceptive attempt to change California's Constitution to create huge Las Vegas-size commercial casinos on non-Indian lands throughout California.

In fact, the very organizations Prop. 68 promoters claim to help, overwhelmingly reject this deceptive measure:

  • Taxpayer groups OPPOSE Prop. 68 because IT WILL HURT-NOT HELP-THE STATE'S BUDGET- not one dollar will go to reduce the state's defificit, and 68 exempts its promoters from paying any future state and local tax increases.
  • The California Police Chiefs Association, California State Firefighters Association, the California District Attorneys Association, and more than 30 County Sheriffs OPPOSE because Prop. 68 means MORE CRIME AND HIGHER LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS. Prop. 68 would place HUGE NEW CASINOS on non-Indian lands in our cities and suburbs-30,000 new slot machines NEAR MORE THAN 200 SCHOOLS.
  • Education leaders and child advocates OPPOSE because Prop. 68 WILL END UP COSTING OUR SCHOOLS MILLIONS, hurting our kids.
  • Public safety and local government leaders OPPOSE because Prop. 68 means MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION on already overcrowded freeways and surface streets.
  • Please join Governor Schwarzenegger, law enforcement, firefighters, educators, parents, Indian tribes, business, labor, seniors, local government, environmentalists, and taxpayer groups, and VOTE NO ON 68.

    STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING PROPOSITION. It's a bad deal for all Californians. Please VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 68.

    CARLA NIŅO, President California State PTA

    DAVID W. PAULSON, President California District Attorneys Association

    MIKE SPENCE, President California Taxpayers Protection Committee

 

ARGUMENT Against
Proposition 68

Message from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: "I am officially opposed to Proposition 68, and I strongly urge you to VOTE NO."

This measure is not what it seems. While proponents claim the measure will force Indian gaming tribes to pay their fair share to the state, Proposition 68 does nothing of the sort.

Proposition 68 is not a guaranteed source of revenues for California from Indian gaming tribes. Instead it authorizes 16 new Las Vegas-style casinos to be built in urban areas throughout California.

Governor Schwarzenegger has a vision for California that does NOT include making our state the next pot of gold for commercial casino gambling interests. Governor Schwarzenegger believes casino gaming should be limited to Indian lands.

THE NEW AGREEMENTS GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER NEGOTIATED WITH MANY INDIAN GAMING TRIBES ARE A WINNER FOR TRIBES AND TAXPAYERS. These agreements keep California's promise to Indian tribes while making them pay their fair share. They promote cooperation between tribes and local governments to deal with the impact on law enforcement, traffic congestion, and road construction. Unfortunately, Proposition 68 could destroy these new agreements.

The 16 new casinos authorized by Proposition 68 are located in urban areas of California. They will be near 200 schools and major streets and freeways in Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, further congesting our crowded roads.

NOT A SINGLE PENNY FROM THIS INITIATIVE CAN BE USED TO HELP BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET. Further, the promoters of Proposition 68 have written it so they are exempt from paying any future increases in state and local taxes.

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER JOINS MORE THAN 400 PUBLIC SAFETY, TAXPAYER, AND OTHER LEADERS IN SAYING:

VOTE NO ON 68

California Police Chiefs Association, California State Firefighters' Association, California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations, California District Attorneys Association, More than 50 California Indian Tribes, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, State Controller Steve Westly, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, Crime Victims United of California, Peace Officers Research Association of California, Sierra Club California, California School Boards Association, The Seniors Coalition, Prevent Child Abuse California, California Taxpayer Protection Committee.

AND 34 COUNTY SHERIFFS:
· Sheriff James Allen · Sheriff Terry Bergstrand · Sheriff Virginia Black · Sheriff Ed Bonner · Sheriff Bob Brooks · Sheriff Bill Cogbill · Sheriff Anthony Craver · Sheriff John Crawford · Sheriff Jim Denney · Sheriff Bob Doyle · Sheriff Robert Doyle · Sheriff Bill Freitas · Sheriff Curtis Hill · Sheriff William Kolender · Sheriff Dan Lucas · Sheriff Ken Marvin, Ret. · Sheriff Scott Marshall · Sheriff Rodney Mitchell · Sheriff Bruce Mix · Sheriff Daniel Paranick · Sheriff Clay Parker · Sheriff Gary Penrod · Sheriff Charles Plummer · Sheriff Jim Pope · Sheriff Ed Prieto · Sheriff Michael Prizmich · Sheriff Perry Reniff · Sheriff Richard Rogers · Sheriff Warren Rupf · Sheriff Robert Shadley, Jr. · Sheriff Gary Simpson · Sheriff Gary Stanton · Sheriff Mark Tracy · Sheriff Dean Wilson.

PROP. 68 WOULD RESULT IN A HUGE EXPANSION OF CASINO GAMBLING ON NON-INDIAN LANDS.

It's a sweetheart deal for the gambling interests behind it, another broken promise to Indian tribes, and a bad deal for the rest of us.

VOTE NO ON 68. STOP THE DECEPTIVE GAMBLING PROPOSITION.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
State of California

JEFF SEDIVEC, President
California State Firefighters' Association

WAYNE QUINT, JR., President
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations

REBUTTAL to Argument Against Proposition 68

"[Arnold Schwarzenegger] wants to renegotiate gaming compacts with casino-operating Indian tribes in the hopes of getting tribes to share revenue with the state. He noted tribes pay Connecticut 25 percent of their revenues, and said such an arrangement could pay for 'thousands of police officers, thousands of teachers.' "
-Sacramento Bee, Sept. 24, 2003

We agreed then and we agree now. It makes zero sense for the overwhelming majority of Indian casinos-a $6-$8 billion industry-to operate in California while paying virtually nothing to support the common good.

It's time for these immensely profitable Indian casinos to give something back to the state that has given them the most lucrative gaming monopoly in history. It's time for the people of California to get their fair share.

Proposition 68 isn't a blank check for the politicians in Sacramento. It requires a real and meaningful fair share payment that must be used to hire local police and sheriffs, keep local fire stations open, and fund proven educational programs for abused and neglected children.

To make sure it's truly fair, we give the Indian casinos the final choice. They choose to make this 25% contribution just as they do in New York and Connecticut. Otherwise, the state will allow limited and highly regulated competition with an even bigger financial return to California's communities.

Before you make your decision, please read the initiative. We think you'll agree: it's time the Indian casinos did the right thing. And pay their fair share.

LEE BACA, Sheriff
County of Los Angeles

LOU BLANAS, Sheriff
County of Sacramento

ROY BURNS, President
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)



Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.


Back to Top



 
Copyright © 2004 California Secretary of State