California Proposition 68, Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation (2004)
|Voting on Gambling|
|Not on ballot|
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.
|I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV|
Text of measure
The ballot title was:
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."
- 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.
- 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.
About $80 million was spent altogether, pro and con, on Proposition 68.
Of this, $27.6 million was spent in favor, and about $53 million in opposition.
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
Opposition donors included:
- Auburn Rancheria: $8.2 million
- Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians: $8.1 million
- Pala Band of Mission Indians: $6.69 million
- Pechanga Band of Mission Indians: $5.4 million
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians: $4.6 million
- Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians: $3.2 million
- California Recovery Team: $4.37 million
- AFL-CIO, $95,000.
- Official Voter Guide to Proposition 68
- November 2004 election results from the California Secretary of State
- LAO analysis of Proposition 68
- Guide to Proposition 68 from the California Voter Foundation
- Analysis of Proposition 68 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Archived copy of "No on 68 and 70" campaign website
- Archived copy of "No on 68" campaign website
- Archived copy of "Yes on 68" campaign website
- PDF of the mailed November 2, 2004 voter guide for Propositions 59, 60, 60A, 61-64, 66-72