For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, will be limited. Select races will be covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
California Proposition 70, Tribal Gaming Compacts Amendment (2004)
|Voting on Gambling|
|Not on ballot|
Proposition 70 would have required the Governor of California to execute a gaming compact on request of any federally recognized Indian tribe, with no limits on the number of machines, facilities or types of games offered.
The campaigns for and against Proposition 70 were to a considerable extent run simultaneously with the campaigns for and against Proposition 68.
|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:
- "Upon tribe's request, should the Governor be required to execute a 99-year compact? Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming."
- Upon request by federally-recognized Indian tribe, Governor must execute renewable 99-year gaming compact.
- Grants exclusive tribal gaming rights; no limits on number of machines, facilities, types of games on Indian land.
- Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income, based on prevailing state corporate tax rate, to state fund.
- Contributions cease if non-tribal casino-type gaming is permitted.
- Contributions are in lieu of any other fees, taxes, levies.
- Requires off-reservation impact assessments, public notice/comment opportunities before significant expansion or construction of gaming facilities.
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 70. That estimate was:
- Unknown effect on payments to the state from Indian tribes. The potential increase or decrease in these payments could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred million dollars annually.
- Likely reduction in tribal payments to local governments, potentially totaling in the millions of dollars annually.
The "Yes on 70" campaign spent about $30 million. One small committee spent about $75,000 specifically to defeat Proposition 70, but the bulk of the funds to defeat Proposition 70 were spent in a coordinated campaign by the "No on 68" campaign, where over $30 million was spent.
Donors to "Yes on 70" included:
- Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians: $13.7 million
- San Manuel Band of Mission Indians: $11 million
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians: $3.5 million
- Official Voter Guide to Proposition 70
- LAO analysis of Proposition 70
- November 2004 election results from the California Secretary of State
- Guide to Proposition 70 from the California Voter Foundation
- Analysis of Propositions 68 & 70 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Archived copy of the "Yes on 70" campaign website
- PDF of the mailed November 2, 2004 voter guide for Propositions 59, 60, 60A, 61-64, 66-72
<ref> tags exist, but no
<references/> tag was found