1. indian gaming, public opinion, & policy in california presented at the University of California, Irvine UROP Symposium by Ronald R. Baldonado May 14, 2005

2. purpose/objective Qualitative study examining the connections and relationships between Indian gaming, public opinion, and public policy in California Dynamic issue affecting the future of the state

3. introduction

4. Native Americans were forced off their lands and placed in reservations as “outcast members of sovereign alien nations.” (Barker and Britz 2000) Resulted in extreme poverty, low incomes, and high levels of unemployment, poor education, inferior housing, and high tendencies of suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse (Barker and Britz 2000)

5. introduction 1970s and 1980s – Advent of Indian gaming Economic self-sufficiency and “Indian self-reliance” California v. Cabazon Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 CA Proposition 5 (1998); Proposition 1A (2000); Propositions 68 and 70 (2004) Arnold Schwarzenegger and “Fair share”

6. some quick facts Source: National Indian Gaming Association Library and Resource Center Total number of federally-recognized Indian Tribes: 562 Number of Tribal Governments engaged in gaming: 224 Tribal Governmental gaming revenue in 2002: $14.5 billion (21% of total gaming industry) Source: California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA) Total number of compacts in CA: 62 Total number of federally-recognized tribes in CA: 107

7. methods Archival Research: legislative decisions, public opinion polls, voter trends In-depth informant interviews [n =16 ]  Indian Gaming Tribal Council Members [n=8]  Legislative Staff Members from the CA State Assembly and Senate [n=2]  Representatives from the Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [n=2]  California Nations Indian Gaming Association Representatives (CNIGA) [n=3]  Experts/Scholars [n=1]

8. methods Sample of Standard Questions: How would you characterize the current state of Indian gaming regulation in California? What do you believe is an appropriate policy concerning the scope and style of gambling in California? Do you believe that the regulation of gambling is changing? If so, how? How should revenue sharing be decided?

9. results “[Indian gaming] cuts across different philosophies. Some don’t like any gaming or the unionization of it. Issues cut across different ideologies and philosophies. As you dig more into issues, it gets more complex.” – State Assembly Legislative Staff Member

10. results – views on expansion Office of the Governor State Legislature General Public Opinion Native Americans “Californians didn’t vote for the ‘Nevadatization’ of California.” Lytton Compact “Two-thirds approval of ‘Nevada-style gaming’ on Indian lands only. (LA Times Poll) Expansion should be driven by market forces

11. results – views on taxation Office of Governor State Legislature General Public Opinion Native Americans “Corporate Tax (8.84%) is misleading.” To decide taxation, must take into account: 1) demands of infrastructure; 2) likely impacts; and 3) prospects of earning money “Contribution rate should be more than the corporate tax. Each compact needs to consider the unique attributes of each tribe. A one size fits all mentality doesn’t work.” “A strong majority of Californians believe Indian tribes that own casinos should pay more of their gambling revenue to the state.” 63% support compact renegotiation (LA Times – 4/2004) Corporate Tax versus 25%

12. results – office of the governor “[The Governor’s Office] is respectful of tribal sovereignty, but it does not mean it would enter into compacts that do not benefit Californians who patronize these establishments. [We] will continue to seek to do what we feel is in the best interests of Californians.” - Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

13. conclusion Inconsistent views on taxation, regulation, etc. among gaming tribes Obvious disparities Superficial appearance of neutrality and unity Closer analysis reveals a diversity of opinions and the emergence of special interests

14. future research directions Revenue sharing among both big and small Native American tribes; “Special funds distribution” Indian gaming and effects relating to the environment, crime, etc. in surrounding communities  public policy considerations

15. acknowledgements Special THANKS to:  Professor John Dombrink  Professor Valerie Jenness  Social Ecology Honors Students  Professor William N. Thompson - UNLV  California Nations Indian Gaming Association  National Indian Gaming Association  Ricky Chavez  Parents, Sister, and Friends  Funding provided by: The Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program

16. for further information Please send inquires to: rbaldona@uci.edu Ronald R. Baldonado Department of Criminology, Law & Society Social Ecology Honors Program University of California, Irvine