California Proposition 96, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Gaming Compact Referendum (February 2008)
| California Proposition 96 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date February 5, 2008 | |
| Topic Gambling | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Referendum | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 96 was on the ballot as a veto referendum in California on February 5, 2008. It was approved.
A "yes" vote was to uphold an amendment to the gaming compact between the state and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation to allow them to operate an additional 3,000 slot machines and require the tribe to pay $20 million and a portion of the additional slot revenue to the state. |
A "no" vote was to reject an amendment to the gaming compact between the state and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation to allow them to operate an additional 3,000 slot machines and require the tribe to pay $20 million and a portion of the additional slot revenue to the state. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 96 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
4,785,413 | 55.45% | ||
| No | 3,844,408 | 44.55% | ||
Measure design
- See also: California Tribal Gaming Compacts (2008)
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.[1]
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.
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.
- Requires the tribe to pay at least $20,000,000 annually under the contract, as well as a percentage of the revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.
- 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
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 96 was as follows:
| “ | Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
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. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Yes on 94, 95, 96 & 97 led the campaign in support of all four propositions related to gaming compacts.
Supporters
- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)[1]
- Jack O'Connell, California Superintendent of Public Instruction[1]
- Gene Gantt, Legislative Director, California Fire Chiefs Association[1]
- Linda Adams, Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency[1]
- Alan Wayne Barcelona, president, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 94 were signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); Jack O'Connell, California Superintendent of Public Instruction; and Gene Gantt, Legislative Director of California Fire Chiefs Association:[1]
| “ |
PROTECT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR IN OUR STATE BUDGET BY VOTING YES ON PROPS. 94, 95, 96, AND 97. Under new Indian Gaming Revenue Agreements negotiated by the Governor and approved by bipartisan majorities of the Legislature, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and three other Southern California tribes will pay a much higher percentage of their gaming revenues to the state. At a time when California faces a budget crisis, these agreements will provide hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues each year—billions in the years ahead to help pay for public safety, education, and other services. Your YES vote on Props. 94 through 97 preserves these agreements and protects the new revenues they provide. Voting NO would undo the agreements and force our state to lose billions. A YES VOTE IS ENDORSED BY A BROAD COALITION, including: • California Fire Chiefs Association • California Statewide Law Enforcement Association • California Association for Local Economic Development • Peace Officers Research Association of California, representing 60,000 police and sheriff officers • Congress of California Seniors • California Indian Tribes OUR STATE FACES A BUDGET CRISIS—VOTING YES PROTECTS FUNDING FOR VITAL STATE SERVICES. California faces mounting budget deficits. These agreements won’t solve our budget problems, but they provide vitally needed help. The last thing we need is to cancel these new agreements and put our state billions of dollars further in the hole. 'Voting YES protects billions in new revenues to fund public safety, education, and other vital services.' —Sheldon Gilbert, President, California Fire Chiefs Association VOTING YES KEEPS GAMING ON EXISTING TRIBAL LANDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA—WHILE PROVIDING BENEFITS TO OUR ENTIRE STATE. Props. 94 through 97 will allow the tribes to add slot machines on their existing tribal lands in Riverside and San Diego Counties. In return, the tribes will pay increased revenues from these machines to the state to support services in communities statewide. VOTING YES AUTHORIZES NEW PROTECTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, CASINO EMPLOYEES, AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES. Key provisions in the agreements include: • Increased state regulatory oversight through audits and random inspections. • Strict new environmental standards for casino-related projects. • Binding mitigation agreements that increase coordination between tribes and local governments, including compensation for law enforcement and fire services. • Increased protections for casino workers, including the right to unionize. VOTING YES BENEFITS CALIFORNIA TRIBES AND OUR ECONOMY. The agreements will create thousands of new jobs for Indians and non-Indians. Also, under the new agreements, these tribes will share tens of millions of dollars from their revenues with tribes that have little or no gaming. 'Tribes throughout California support these agreements. They provide the state with much-needed new revenues and provide smaller, non-gaming tribes with funding to help our people become self-reliant and to fund healthcare, education, and other services on our reservations.'—Chairman Raymond Torres, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians PROTECT OUR STATE BUDGET. PROTECT CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS. PROTECT VITAL SERVICES. VOTE YES on 94, 95, 96, and 97. www.YESforCalifornia.com[2] |
” |
Opposition
No on 94, 95, 96 & 97 led the campaign in opposition to all four propositions related to gaming compacts.
Opponents
- Marty Hittelman, president, California Federation of Teachers[1]
- John A. Gomez, Jr., president, American Indian Rights and Resources Organization[1]
- Lenny Goldberg, executive director, California Tax Reform Association[1]
- John F. Hanley, fire captain, Fire Fighters Local 798[1]
- Dolores Huerta, co-founder, United Farm Workers[1]
- Maury Hannigan, former commissioner and chief executive officer, California Highway Patrol[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 94 were signed by Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers; John A. Gomez, Jr., president of the American Indian Rights and Resources Organization; and Lenny Goldberg, executive director, California Tax Reform Association:[1]
| “ |
It’s amazing what millions of dollars in political contributions can get you in Sacramento these days. Just ask four of the wealthiest and most powerful tribes in the state—Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan, and Agua Caliente. After wining and dining the Legislature, the Big 4 tribes cut a deal for ONE OF THE LARGEST EXPANSIONS OF CASINO GAMBLING IN U.S. HISTORY—far beyond the modest increase voters were promised. It’s a sweetheart deal for the Big 4 tribes, but a raw deal for other tribes, taxpayers, workers, and the environment. Fortunately, nearly 3 million referendum signatures were submitted to demand the opportunity voters now have to OVERTURN THESE LEGISLATIVE GIVEAWAYS. We urge you to take advantage of this hard fought opportunity to VOTE NO on 94, 95, 96, and 97. Ask the tough questions and get the facts. How much gambling expansion are we talking about? Add up all the slot machines at a dozen big Vegas casinos, including the Bellagio, MGM Grand, Mirage, and Mandalay Bay, and they still wouldn’t total the 17,000 additional slot machines these deals authorize. Pechanga could more than triple their current 2,000 maximum number of slot machines to 7,500. California would become home to some of the largest casinos in the world. Why do other tribes oppose these deals? Just 4 of California’s 108 tribes would get UNFAIR CONTROL OVER ONE-THIRD OF THE STATE’S INDIAN GAMING PIE, with dominant casinos that could ECONOMICALLY DEVASTATE SMALLER TRIBES. Who would calculate how much revenue goes to the state? The Big 4 tribes themselves. The deals include an EASILY MANIPULATED REVENUE SHARING FORMULA that lets THE BIG 4 DECIDE WHICH SLOT MACHINES TO COUNT AND HOW MUCH TO PAY THE STATE. In short: The deals let the Big 4 tribes off the hook for fair revenue sharing with taxpayers. Why do they promise more education revenues when NOT ONE PENNY OF IT IS GUARANTEED TO OUR SCHOOLS? That’s what the California Federation of Teachers would like to know. They’re opposed to these deals. Why do labor unions oppose the Big 4 deals? The deals would shower 4 wealthy tribes with billions in profits, but FAIL TO ENSURE THE MOST BASIC RIGHTS FOR CASINO WORKERS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE. Why didn’t the Big 4 deals include strict environmental protections? Unlike previous compacts with other tribes, the BIG 4 DEALS FAILED TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT TRULY MIRRORS THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT to give citizens a meaningful voice on casino expansion projects that threaten our environment. The Big 4 tribes went to great expense to try to prevent you from having a say on their deals. That’s because they know that their UNFAIR, POLITICAL DEALS will not stand up to voter scrutiny. Join public safety officials, educators, tribes, taxpayers, labor unions, senior groups, civil rights and environmental organizations, and VOTE NO on 94, 95, 96, and 97. Force them back to the drawing board to come up with a better plan that’s fair to other tribes, taxpayers, and workers.[2] |
” |
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[3] | 42% | 37% | 21% |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For veto referendums filed in 2008, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required. Proponents of the veto referendum had 90 days from the date that the bill was signed to collect signatures.
The joint signature drive to qualify all four for the veto referendums needed to collect a total of 1,735,884 signatures. The campaign 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.[4]
See also
External links
- Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 96
- Full text of Proposition 96
- February 5, 2008 ballot proposition election returns
- Proposition 96 in the Smart Voter Guide
- 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)
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed March 5, 2021 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "guide" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Ballot measure TV ads get voters' attention; Proposition 93 support slips, Press-Enterprise, Jan. 24, 2008
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Expenditure details:Californians Against Unfair Deals," accessed February 2008
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
