Poll: Voters Not Aware Of Props

A new Field Poll indicates low voter awareness about the statewide propositions that will appear on the February 2005 ballot. Only 1 in 4 voters are aware of the 4 Props concerning Indian gaming. The Presidential races seem to be garnering the most attention

Awareness about the four referenda to approve or overturn the four Indian casino compacts hovers below 30%. "This is nothing that directly affects voters in their own day to day lives," explained the Field Poll's Mark DiCamillo.

Full Article:
http://www.kcbs.com/Presidential-Campaign-Overshadows-Statewide-Props/1394842

Poll : Voters Slightly Favor Casino Deals

A Field Poll of 866 likely voters interviewed Dec. 10-17 showed that 39 percent favor the four amended compact deals.

Thirty-three percent of poll respondents said they would vote "no" and reject the casino expansion compacts and twenty-eight percent were undecided.

On Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 – 64 percent of voters who favor increased Indian gambling in California said they supported the tribes' casino expansion agreements. But by a 52 percent to 18 percent margin, voters who oppose more Indian gambling were against the new tribal compacts.

"What is clear is that voters' opinions on these referenda are directly related to how they feel about the expansion of Indian gambling in California," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll. "If you're in favor of expanding Indian gambling, you're 4 to 1 in favor of these compacts. If you're opposed to expansion, you're 3 to 1 opposed."

"That's where the tug of war is going to take place."

While more voters favor the gambling compacts than oppose them, 45 percent of voters interviewed in the poll said they object to more Indian casino gambling in California. Forty-one percent of respondents said they favor more gambling, and 14 percent had no opinion.

DiCamillo said anti-gambling sentiment in California is down from a Field Poll in September 2006, when 50 percent of respondents said they opposed more tribal gambling and 39 percent said they favored increased Indian gambling in the state.

DiCamillo attributed the shift to millions of dollars in television advertising purchased by the four Southern California tribes. The ads, calling for "yes" votes on the Indian gambling agreements, argue that casino revenue-sharing agreements could add $9 billion to California's state coffers over 20 years.

"Especially in these tight budget times, we believe California will see the value in billions of dollars these agreements will bring to the state," said Roger Salazar, spokesman for the tribes' Coalition to Protect California's Budget & Economy. "If we are at 39 percent support and you still have nearly 30 percent of voters undecided, we believe we will be able to capture a majority of those voters."

Voters questioned in the latest Field Poll on the tribal compacts were read a condensed version of the Feb. 5 ballot statements for the referendums that excluded some details on environmental exemptions for the tribes.

In a previous poll that didn't include any actual ballot wording, 52 percent of poll respondents in October favored the Indian gambling compacts, compared with 35 percent opposed.

Shelly Sullivan, spokesman for the No on the Unfair Gambling Deals coalition, said the new poll indicates increasing skepticism among California voters over the casino expansions.

"I think once people are able to read the ballot summaries, that will improve our chances of educating voters on why these agreements are bad for California," said Sullivan, whose coalition is backed by the Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park race tracks, the Pala and United Auburn tribes, and the UNITE HERE hospitality workers union. "So far, millions and millions of dollars have been spent, reflecting only one side of the story," Sullivan said.

The new Field Poll reflected a gender gap on the casino expansions. By a 46 percent to 32 percent margin, male voters favored more tribal slot machines while female voters were evenly split.

Full Article:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/593146.html

Wishes For The New Year....

I want to wish everyone, no matter where they stand on any of the issues posted here, a happy and safe holiday season. May the new year bring all of us health, happieness, and prosperity.... while showing compassion, tolerance and understanding towards each other.

LAO - Feb 5 Ballot Measures

The Legislative Analyst's Office has posted backgrounds, summaries and possible fiscal effects of the four Feb 5 ballot measures which will decide the fate of the amended compacts. Anyone wishing to be well informed on these measures before voting, avoiding the spin from both sides, would do well to use this site.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/propositions.aspx

The measures are Props 94, 95, 96, and 97

UNITE HERE - $2 Million More

UNITE HERE, which spearheaded the signature-gathering drive for the four referendums, donated another $2 million to the campaign this week. The union had previously given $1 million to the campaign to qualify what's become Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

POLO/POSY vs. United States Department of the Interior - Feb 2008

The Chumash applied in 2002 to place a 6.9-acre parcel into federal trust for a museum, cultural center and commercial space. In 2005 the BIA approved it and POLO, among other groups, appealed the decision. In Feb 2006, the federal government denied the appeal stating that the groups had no legal standing to appeal an annexation by a federal agency.

POLO / POSY then filed an appeal against the U.S. Department of the Interior in an attempt to reverse that decision.

P.O.L.O. and POSY vs. the United States Department of the Interior should be heard in Federal Court sometime in February of next year.

This from POLO:
“Amazingly, Indian tribes, many of them of questionable tribal and land legitimacy, can aggressively expand their land and gambling and the federal government (i.e. the taxpayer...i.e. us) provides them legal representation. Yet the federal government provides no representation for the non-tribal community. This means communities like ours who are fighting for a say must fund their lawsuits privately.”

Without the typical hype and half-truths provided by these groups, here are some facts about Tribal Land into Trust:

In 1980, the Department of the Interior (Interior) established regulations to provide a uniform approach for taking land in trust. Trust status means the government holds title to the land in trust for tribes and individual Indians. Trust land is exempt from state and local taxes. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated primary responsibility for processing, reviewing, and deciding on applications to take land in trust to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). As part of this process, BIA must seek comments from affected state and local governments.

Why are tribes allowed to put land into trust?

Tribal Trusts are a result of The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA), which was enacted to remedy the devastating loss of tribal land to Indians. Between the years of 1887 and 1934, the U.S. Government took over 90 million acres, nearly 2/3 of reservation lands, from the tribes without compensation and gave it to settlers. In addition, the termination era of the 1940's and 50's resulted in similarly unjust losses of huge amounts of reservation land. The IRA of 1934 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to hold land for Indian Tribes and individual Indians in trust, thereby securing Indian lands for economic development, housing, and related purposes. It also allows the tribe to benefit from the housing and other federal programs which can only be used on land which has been placed in trust.

According to the regulations (5 CFR 151.10) when applying to take land into trust, a tribe must provide the following information to the BIA:

· Official citations of federal statutes under which the transaction is to take place and a tribal government resolution authorizing the acceptance of the transfer.

· A legal description of the property, and a tribal request for trust status.

· Discussion of whether third parties will be using the land.

Discussion of the need to take the land into trust, and justification why the present status of the land will not serve that need. Avoiding taxation may not be used as a reason.

· Description of the purposes of the transfer. The tribe must specifically explain the intended use of the acquired land (eg. housing, economic development) and how the acquisition will enhance that use.

· Assessment of impact on local government. The tribe, after consulting with local government, must describe any existing conflicts over taxation and services such as: policing, utilities, zoning and fire protection.

· Indication of resolution of problems and conflicts. Where conflicts exist, tribes must also describe how they intend to resolve conflicts over tax funded activities.

· Proof of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and federal hazardous waste laws.

There are much greater limitations on land into trust if land is to be used by a tribal government for gaming purposes. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. §2719, prohibits gaming on off-reservation lands acquired in trust after 1988, unless the Governor of the state concurs and the Secretary determines that gaming would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.

Tribes and individual Indians have submitted about 1,300 applications to have their land placed in trust. Not all of these will allow tribes to build casinos. The average processing time is about 18 months. That would mean that it would take the BIA decades to resolve the backlog.

Out of that 1,300 only 217 applications are fully complete and ready for a decision.

The BIA has been looking at the applications on a regional basis to get a better handle on the backlog. So far, the analysis has revealed a wide range of practices and policies.

In order to standardize and expedite the process the BIA back in November said that they would release a new land-into-trust handbook within the next four to six weeks. I don’t know if that book has been released yet.

Sources:
http://www.trustandconsequences.com/print_this_story.asp?smenu=89&sdetail=526
http://www.citizensalliance.org/Major%20Issues/Land%20Into%20Trust/bia_fee_to_trust_policy.htm
http://www.ncai.org/Land-Into-Trust.57.0.html

Interior Lost Compacts – Declare Them Approved

Federal officials yesterday finalized what they have portrayed as the accidental approval of four gambling agreements that still face statewide votes on the Feb. 5 ballot.

The action added an additional layer of legal confusion to the deals for Sycuan of El Cajon, Pechanga of Temecula, Agua Caliente of Palm Springs and the Morongo tribe of east Riverside County.

The four tribes applauded the move but said they remain focused on the campaign to sell their compacts to California voters.

The tribes said they have no immediate plans to start expanding their gambling operations under the deals, which authorize up to a total of 17,000 more slot machines on the four reservations.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who negotiated the agreements, said through a spokeswoman that he believes final voter approval is still necessary, a position shared by a key federal official, George Skibine of the Indian gaming office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

An attorney for Sycuan and Morongo was not so sure, although he predicted a Feb. 5 victory will render the legal question moot.

The four compacts were sent to the Interior Department on Sept. 5. They arrived two days later, but there is no record of their whereabouts until Nov. 26, when someone dropped them in Skibine's in-box.

Federal law gives the Interior Department 45 days to consider compacts. If they are not acted upon during that span, they are deemed approved under federal law.

Skibine concluded this month that, with the compacts lost at the Interior Department for 80 days, he had no choice but to declare the agreements approved. At the time, he noted that they would not take effect until notice of the approval was published in the Federal Register and that there was no deadline for that to happen.

But Skibine said Interior officials recently told him “to send the notices through the system.” The notices, which declare each of the four compacts “now in effect,” were published in the register yesterday.

“It is meaningless,” said Scott Macdonald, a spokesman for the opposition campaign that qualified the ballot measures to block the compacts. “There is no deal for the federal government to be reviewing. ... Under the California Constitution, these deals are in a suspended state.”

The referendum measures put the compacts on hold even though they were ratified by the Legislature. If the vote goes against the compacts – and recent polls suggest it's a toss-up – the ratification bills would be repealed.

If that happens, the legal weight of the federal approval would become the subject of a long legal fight, several attorneys said.

“There are certainly arguments to be made that federal law is paramount, and ... there are, I am sure, arguments that can be marshaled the other way,” said veteran tribal attorney George Forman, who represents Sycuan and Morongo.

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the administration contacted the Interior Department in recent weeks, urging officials to sign off on the compacts, which offer a large, new revenue source for a strapped state budget.

“We did provide information and clarification to get the compacts approved and published,” spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart said, declining to elaborate.

But Lockhart said the compacts themselves contain a requirement of state ratification, which now hinges on the Feb. 5 vote.

“We only deemed them approved, and only to the extent they complied with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,” Skibine said. “Part of the compliance would be if they had been validly entered into” with the state. He reiterated that the act requires state approval.

Nonetheless, the four tribes welcomed the news.

“With publication, the governor, state Legislature and now the federal government have all approved the agreement,” Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro said in a statement. “Clearly the efforts to break these comprehensive agreements are a waste of time and money.”

In the case of Sycuan, whose compact authorizes a contentious off-reservation casino in the Dehesa Valley, federal approval had been uncertain.

“Today is a historic day for the Sycuan tribe,” Chairman Danny Tucker said in a statement. “We are pleased that the Department of Interior has published notice that our amended compact has been approved in accordance with federal law.”

Sycuan could expand from 2,000 to 5,000 slots under its new compact, but it has no “immediate plans to install any more,” spokesman Adam Day said.
“We're awaiting the outcome of the referendum campaign,” Day said.

Because the 45-day period had expired, neither Skibine nor anyone else at the Interior Department could even review the compacts. That, along with the more tenuous legal status of compacts deemed approved, could backfire, said Scott Crowell, an attorney who represents the Rincon band of north San Diego County and tribes in seven other states.

“I don't believe it's helpful to the four tribes,” Crowell said. “Frankly, I think this development makes their agreements far more vulnerable to a legal attack.”

In addition to the compacts, the Interior Department's action approved largely identical memorandums of agreement in which the four tribes promised to maintain internal security controls.

The tribes also agreed to permit state monitoring to ensure compliance with those federal standards, to make annual financial audits available for state review and to enforce child support orders issued by state courts.

Full Article
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071220/news_1n20compacts.html

Pala Antes Up $2.5 Million More To Oppose New Compacts

Yesterday the Pala Band of Mission Indians donated $2.5 million to oppose rival tribes' casino expansion compacts on the Feb. 5 ballot.

The tribe, which operates a casino near San Diego, had previously given $500,000 to gather signatures for the four referendums to challenge the compacts, but had not promised to financially back the campaign itself.

Back in in August, tribal attorney Howard Dickstein, who represents Pala and a second tribe which gave $500,000 for signature gathering, the United Auburn Indian Community, told The Bee, "What they have decided is to provide financial support for the signature gathering. If and when it qualifies for the ballot, they will have a fresh look at what, if any, participation they will have in the campaign."

Now it’s clear that Pala, which runs the Pala Casino Spa & Resort, is backing the effort to overturn the compacts, at least to the initial tune of $2.5 million.

The last time the Pala tribe donated to the referendum effort, a similar sized check was sent by the United Auburn tribe within two weeks.

Al Lundeen, a spokesman for the referendum effort, wouldn’t comment if more money was on the way from United Auburn, saying that revealing the campaign’s finances “would give our strategy away.”

As for the $2.5 million, he said, “We’ve felt all along we would be running a campaign until Election Day and this gives us a better opportunity to do that.”

Beside Pala and United Auburn, most of the funding for the referendum campaign, which is urging a ‘no’ vote on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97, has come from the Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park horse racing tracks. Another $1 million came from Unite HERE, a hotel and restaurant workers union, which wants better access to organize casino workers.

All told those groups have reported raising $8.7 million, though much of the money was spent qualifying the referendums for the ballot.

The four tribes seeking to defend their amended compacts have chipped in $34.4 million and have spent money airing ads on television.

"Pala has unlimited slot machines in its compact,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman the tribes supporting the compacts. “They are using this money to stop competition without any regard for what it can do to the state’s budget.”

Full Article:
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/009553.html

More Referendum News

Agua Caliente Lose Appeal

Yesterday a state appeals court denied appeals from the Agua Caliente and two other tribes that are trying to keep their expanded gambling agreements off the ballot.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overrule three separate superior court decisions that concluded the revised agreements are legitimate and should be on the Feb. 5 ballot.

"That's pleasing because we believe that Californians should have a right to vote and the chance to overturn the...compacts, and we are glad the court agrees with us," said Al Lundeen, a spokesman for the coalition behind the ballot push."

We just received the decision, and we will be reviewing it,'" said Patrick Dorinson, a spokesman for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which had filed one of the cases.

He added the tribe hasn't had time to consider whether to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

A fourth tribe, the Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Indians, has a expanded gambling agreement, known as a compact, at stake in the current debate too, but didn't file a court challenge.

Full Article:
http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NEWS06/71207032

Cal Chamber Backing Indian Gambling Initiatives

The California Chamber of Commerce announced yeterday its support for the four Indian gambling measures on the Feb. 5 ballot.

In a prepared statement, Chamber President Allan Zaremberg encouraged voters to support Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

The measures would allow previously negotiated tribal compacts between the State of California and four tribes to go into effect.

Zaremberg said the measures "will protect a steady and significant revenue source to the state's general fund and help pay for schools, roads and bridges, public safety and health care."

Full Article:
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/009507.html

Other News….

CNIGA Membership Dwindles

California's most powerful Indian gambling alliance appears to have lost nearly a third of its members in an exodus driven by tensions within the organization.

Twenty-two tribes, including big gaming operators like Rincon of north San Diego County and Morongo of east Riverside County, did not rejoin the California Nations Indian Gaming Association by last Thursday, the deadline to participate in the annual election of new officers, sources close to the organization said.

Some of those tribes still could renew and pay their dues, which were officially due Nov. 1. At least two indicated checks will soon be in the mail.

But many of the 22 are not expected to return after months of internal haggling over competing interests of gaming and nongaming tribes. With the departures, the organization -- a political force in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. -- will have a little more than 40 members, its smallest membership in years.

Some of the defections were spurred by the group's decision to raise minimum annual dues from $650 to $5,000. Big gaming tribes pay more than $80,000 a year. But the non-renewals were split almost equally between gaming and non-gaming tribes. The latter included Jamul and Manzanita of San Diego County.

There apparently was no disagreement about who should lead the association. Two-term CNIGA Chairman Anthony Miranda was elected unanimously to a third term.

Source: - James P. Sweeney, Copley News Service
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2007/12/mass_exodus_from_tribal_associ.html

US Dept of Interior Ratify Compacts – Referendum Vote May Be Moot

The U.S. Interior Department has ratified the 4 amended compacts between the state government and the tribes, possibly making the February votes moot. As a result, the multibillion-dollar deals could take effect early next week.

Attorneys for other tribes, and for union groups that have opposed the additional gambling, say they were surprised by the decision to ratify the gambling compacts before California voters could make a decision on them.

Although approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor, the other tribes and unions have been trying to derail the proposed compact at the ballot box, using California?s initiative system.

George Forman, an attorney for Sycuan and another of the tribes, Morongo of Riverside County, said last Friday, “I'm not in a position to assess what it means. We are sailing in uncharted waters at high speed.”

But another prominent tribal attorney said the four compacts were “not ripe” for federal consideration, a factor that opponents could use in any bid to rescind the federal approval.

“To those who are telling you the referenda are moot, I would say not so fast,” said attorney Scott Crowell, who represents the Rincon band of north San Diego County.

Despite the pending ballot measures, Secretary of State Debra Bowen submitted the compacts to the Interior Department on Sept. 5, even though the ratification bills won't take effect until Jan. 1.

A spokeswoman for Bowen said she was simply following the office's “ministerial” duties outlined in a government code.

California tribes typically submit compacts to the Interior Department on their own, and tribal officials said they were surprised by Bowen's move.

Federal law gives the Department of Interior just three options when a compact is formally submitted: It can approve or reject it within 45 days; if it does neither, a compact is “deemed” approved under federal law.

The four compacts “have been deemed approved and there will be a notice in the Federal Register early next week,” Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, confirmed late yesterday.

Federal law says that compacts “shall take effect” when notice of approval by the secretary of the interior “has been published . . . in the Federal Register.”

Darling said she could not explain why the compacts were approved before state legislation ratifying the deals had taken effect, much less before a scheduled statewide vote.

But it appears that federal officials wrestled with the delicate situation for at least the past month.

Bowen submitted the four compacts on the same day she sent in a compact for the Yurok tribe of Northern California. The Yurok compact, a small and relatively uncontroversial gambling agreement, was deemed approved by the Interior Department a month ago. Notification was published Nov. 2 in the Federal Register.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who negotiated the agreements, called the unexpected development “good news.”

“The governor believes that these compacts are strong and that this action by the federal government upholds the validity of the compacts,” Sabrina Lockhart said.

However, the administration was assessing the many legal questions, including what it might mean for the pending ballot measures, Lockhart said.

“We are pleased that the federal government has approved the Pechanga compact,” Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro said. “This approval reaffirms the validity of this comprehensive government agreement.”

Al Lundeen, spokesman for the campaign to overturn the compacts, said that despite uncertainty over legal issues, voters should still have the right to vote on the agreements.

“We have the right to the referendum process in California,” Lundeen said. “It certainly would be against the intent of the constitution to deny us of that right.”

Full Articles:
http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/NEWS06/71201003
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071201/news_1n1compacts.html