California Proposition 70, Tribal Gaming Compacts Amendment (2004)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Gambling
Roulette.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures
California Proposition 70, also known as the Tribal Gaming Compacts Amendment, was on the November 2, 2004 election ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.

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.

Election results

Proposition 70
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No8,880,11076.3%
Yes 2,763,800 23.7%

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXAXBXIXIIXIIIXIII AXIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX CXXXXIXXIIXXXIVXXXV
If Proposition 70 had been approved, it would have amended Section 19 of Article IV.

Text of measure

Title

The ballot title was:

Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Question

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."

Summary

"Yes on 70" campaign website banner

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

  • 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.

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 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.

Campaign spending

Website banner of the "No on 68 and 70" campaign

The "Yes on 70" campaign spent about $30 million.[1] 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.[2]

Donors to "Yes on 70" included:

See also

External links


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found