California Proposition 96, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Gaming Compact (2008)

California Proposition 96 was on the February 5, 2008 ballot in California as a veto referendum, where it was approved.

If Proposition 96 had been defeated, it would have nullified a gaming compact enacted in early 2007 between the state of California and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.

All four similar gaming compact measures allow certain Native American tribes in California to add additional slot machines in exchange for giving the state government a higher percentage of their profits from the new slot machines. The four ballot measures differed only in which tribe they referred to and how many slot machines that tribe was allowed to add as a result of the compacts.

See also: California Tribal Gaming Compacts (2008)

Election results

California Proposition 96
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		4,785,413	55.5%
No		3,844,408	44.5%

Details

Proposition 96:

1. Allowed the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation to add an additional 3,000 slot machines in the two casinos it already operated. In those two casinos, it was operating 2,000 slot machines, so Proposition 96 took the total of slot machines up to 5,000.
2. Requires the tribe to pay at least $23,000,000 annually under the contract, as well as a percentage of the revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.
3. Required the tribe to enter into an enforceable agreement to "reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts and to pay for increased public service costs, or go to arbitration to settle disagreements on these issues." This is a stronger degree of regulation than existed in the 1999 gaming compacts that were supplanted by Proposition 96.

Text of measure

Voting on Gambling
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

Title

The ballot title was:

Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Summary

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 96 said:

A "Yes" vote approves and a "No" vote rejects, a law that:

• Ratifies amendment to existing gaming compact between state and Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation; amendment would permit tribe to operate 3,000 additional slot machines;
• Omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act; amendment provides for Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impact;
• Specifies where revenue paid by tribe pursuant to amendment deposited; amendment requires tribe to make $20,000,000 annual payment and pay percentage of revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

• Net increase in annual state government revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.
• For local governments in San Diego County, potential net increase of revenues due to economic growth and potential increased payments from the tribe to offset higher costs.

Support

"Yes on 94, 95, 96 & 97" website banner

Supporters

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 96 were signed by:

• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Jack O'Connell, California Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Gene Gantt, Legislative Director, California Fire Chiefs Association
• Linda Adams, Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency
• Alan Wayne Barcelona, president, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

Arguments in favor

Supporters of Proposition 96 made these arguments in its favor in the state's official voter guide and elsewhere:

• "These agreements will provide hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues each year and billions in the years ahead to help pay for public safety, education, and other services.
• Raise $200 million the first year (with revenues increasing significantly in future years) and an estimated $9 billion over the next two decades to help balance the budget and pay for schools, roads and bridges, public safety and health care
• "The agreements will create thousands of new jobs for Indians and non-Indians."
• The agreement will strengthen employee and environmental protections.

Donors

A joint campaign was conducted in favor of Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

$108,366,370 was contributed to the joint campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on all 4 propositions.

Donors of $100,000 or more were:

Donor	Amount
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians	$41,896,993
Morongo Band of Mission Indians	$37,875,177
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians	$20,865,025
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation	$6,031,637

Opposition

"No on 94, 95, 96 & 97" website banner

Opponents

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 96 were signed by:

• Marty Hittelman, president, California Federation of Teachers
• John A. Gomez, Jr., president, American Indian Rights and Resources Organization
• Lenny Goldberg, executive director, California Tax Reform Association
• John F. Hanley, fire captain, Fire Fighters Local 798
• Dolores Huerta, co-founder, United Farm Workers
• Maury Hannigan, former commissioner and chief executive officer, California Highway Patrol

Arguments against

Californians Against Unfair Deals gave these reasons to oppose the compacts:

• Fail to include clear and fair revenue sharing plans
• The deals would make California home to some of the largest casinos in the world, with more than twice as many slot machines as the big Vegas casinos.
• One third of California's gaming business would be given to 4 of 108 tribes, which might economically devastate smaller tribes.
• The new compacts fail to let communities protest over the possible environmental impact on the area.
• The 4 tribes that benefit from the compacts have a history of denying affordable health care to their employees.
• The deals let the Big 4 tribes manipulate the "revenue sharing formula" and underpay the state.

Donors

2008 propositions
February 5
Proposition 91 • Proposition 92
Proposition 93 • Proposition 94
Proposition 95 • Proposition 96
Proposition 97
June 3
Proposition 98 • Proposition 99
November 4
Proposition 1A • Proposition 2
Proposition 3 • Proposition 4
Proposition 5 • Proposition 6
Proposition 7 • Proposition 8
Proposition 9 • Proposition 10
Proposition 11 • Proposition 12
Local measures

A joint campaign was conducted in opposition to Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

$64,331,873 was contributed to the joint campaign in favor of a "no" vote on all 4 propositions, through two different committees (Californians Against Unfair Deals and Tribes for Fair Play).

Donors of $100,000 or more were:

Donor	Amount
Pala Band of Mission Indians	$12,985,836
Auburn Rancheria	$12,985,836
Stockbridge Real Estate Fund	$3,000,000
UNITE Here	$3,000,000
Bay Meadows Race Track	$2,756,750
Hollywood Park Race Track	$2,756,750
Fair Public Policy Coalition	$1,720,200
International Union of Operating Engineers	$100,000
SEIU	$100,000

Public opinion polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures

Date of Poll	Polling company	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
December 2007	Field Poll	39%	33%	28%
January 14-20, 2008	Field Poll	42%	37%	21%

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

As veto referendums, 433,971 valid signatures each were required to qualify Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 for the ballot, or a total of 1,735,884 signatures. The joint signature drive to qualify all four for the ballot was conducted by Arno Political Consultants and was paid for by Californians Against Unfair Deals.

Arno Political Consultants was paid $3,704,531.30 in total for this work. That comes to $926,132.83 for each individual petition drive.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

• California 2008 ballot propositions
• California Tribal Gaming Compacts (2008)
• Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in California
• California signature requirements

External links

Suggest a link

• Official Voter Information Guide : Proposition 96
• PDF of the mailed February 5, 2008 voter guide for Propositions 94-97
• February 5, 2008 ballot proposition election returns
• Proposition 96 in the Smart Voter Guide
• Analysis of Propositions 94-97 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
• Guide to Proposition 96 from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against 96 from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 96 from Follow The Money
• "Yes on 94, 95, 96 & 97" campaign website (archival)
• "No Unfair Deals" opposition website (archival)