California Proposition 29, Referendum on the Pala Compacts (2000)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Gambling
Roulette.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures
California Proposition 29 was on the March 7, 2000 ballot in California as a veto referendum, where it was approved.

Proposition 29 was an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to overturn the "Pala Compacts" through the veto referendum process. A "yes" vote was a vote to keep the Pala compact in force.

The Pala compact authorized the operation of Indian "video lottery terminals" if operated as lotteries, not slot machines. The compact contained a provision that if the terminals are found by the courts to be slot machines, then the compact is void. The Pala compact does not allow any other Class III games (such as twenty-one or craps).[1]

Election results

Proposition 29
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 3,654,688 53.1%
No3,234,49246.9%

Text of measure

Title

The ballot title was:

1998 Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum Statute.

Summary

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

  • A "Yes" vote approves, a "No" vote rejects a 1998 law which authorized certain tribal-state gaming compacts, provided procedures for future negotiations with tribes, and designated the Governor to negotiate with tribes.
  • Formally approve 11 tribal-state compacts that were concluded in 1998;
  • Provide procedures for approving future compacts;
  • Declare the Governor responsible for negotiation of compacts; and authorize Governor to waive state's immunity to suit by tribes.

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 29. That estimate was:

  • If Proposition 1A (on this ballot) is approved, Proposition 29 would have no fiscal impact on state and local governments.
  • If Proposition 1A is not approved, Proposition 29 would result in unknown, but probably not significant fiscal impacts on state and local governments.

See also

External links

References