California Proposition 68, Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation (2004)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a 2004 ballot proposition in California. For other measures with a similar title, see Proposition 68.
Voting on Gambling
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures
California Proposition 68, also known as the Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation, was on the November 2, 2004 election ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was overwhelmingly defeated.

Proposition 68 would have amended the California Constitution. If all Indian tribes with gambling compacts agreed to revisions to their existing compacts, all of them would have been required to agree to Prop 68's terms within 90 days of passage. They would have had to pay 25% of their “net win” to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund (GRTF) and comply with additional environmental and labor provisions. If all tribes with compacts did not agree, Proposition 68 would have allowed specified racetracks and card rooms located in Alameda , Contra Costa, Los Angeles , Orange , San Diego , and San Mateo Counties to operate up to 30,000 slot machines.

Proposition 68 and Proposition 70 were related and the campaigns run for and against both propositions were generally conducted simultaneously. Money poured into the campaigns about Propositions 68 and 70, with $27.6 million spent to pass them, and $48.5 million spent opposing them.[1]

Election results

Proposition 68
Defeatedd No9,801,28483.8%
Yes 1,897,177 16.2%

Constitutional changes

California Constitution

If Proposition 68 had passed, it would have changed the California Constitution by amending Section 19 of Article IV.

Text of measure


The ballot title was:

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


The question on the ballot was:

"Should tribal compact amendments be authorized? Unless tribes accept, should casino gaming be authorized for sixteen non-tribal establishments? Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services."


The summary of the ballot measure prepared by the California Attorney General said:

  • Authorizes Governor to negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25% of slot machine/gaming device revenues to government fund, comply with multiple state laws, and accept state court jurisdiction.
  • If compacted tribes don't unanimously accept required amendments within 90 days, or if determined unlawful, authorizes sixteen specified non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines/gaming devices, paying 33% of net revenues to fund government public safety, regulatory, social programs.
  • Provides exemption from specified state/local tax increases.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 68. That estimate was:

  • Increased gambling revenues--potentially over $1 billion annually. The revenues would be provided primarily to local governments throughout the state for additional child protective, police, and firefighting services.
  • Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations, potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Campaign donations

About $80 million was spent altogether, pro and con, on Proposition 68.[2]

Of this, $27.6 million was spent in favor, and about $53 million in opposition.


"Yes on 68" campaign logo

Donors in favor of Proposition 68 included:

  • Magna Entertainment $4.8 million
  • Los Alamitos Race Course: $2.4 million
  • Bay Meadows Land: $2.4 million
  • Churchill Downs: $2.4 million
  • Bicycle Casino: $2.35 million
  • Hawaiian Gardens Casino: $2.35 million
  • California Commerce Club: $2.35 million[3]


"No on 68" campaign website banner

Opposition donors included:

See also

External links