Against All Odds (CA Prop 68 and 70) Pt. 1

As I noted in the Weekend Review below I've taken a bit of an interest in Indian Gaming, especially in light of two confusing propositions on the ballot here in CA.

The area is a difficult one and it has been the topic of many law review articles and notes. I'd particularly point to (Lent) Note, Are States Beating the House?: The Validity of Tribal-State Revenue Sharing Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 91 Geo. L.J. 451. The Act discussed in the note, the IGRA, was passed in 1988 by Congress in response to California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987). The SCOTUS, in that case, held that Indians can have gaming on their lands without much state interference. (This concept is popping up in a lot of the political ads for prop. 68, asking viewers why Indians don't pay their fair share. Most people, unfortunately, do not understand the concept of sovereignty. Indians are sovereign nations, with some limitations, hence the SCOTUS ruling). Congress passed IGRA to allow gambling if it did not violate fed laws and was not against specific state provisions. In 1998, CA voters amended the state constitution to allow Nevada-style gaming and to mandate the governor to negotiate compacts with Indian tribes. Then Gov. Davis negotiated 20-year compacts which had some revenue sharing with local governments for infrastructure costs, etc. but not much else. Voters ratified the compacts in 2000.