The annual California All-Tribes Meeting July 6, which will include up to 150 leaders from more than 30 mainly gaming tribes will focus on what tribes want to do to pressure the state to enforce law that bans card rooms from offering banked games.
Steve Stallings, chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, calls this issue “at the top of the list.”
For years the state’s 75 card rooms have largely gotten around this prohibition, although operators claim they are operating within the strict interpretation of the law. Part of the reason is that California divides its gaming enforcement between two agencies, one operating under the governor and the other operating under the state’s attorney general.
They also point out that many card rooms are the subject of money skimming and money laundering investigations, unlike most tribal casinos which generally are untouched by racketeering corruption.
David Quintana, a tribal lobbyist commented recently, “The tribes are talking to the government and trying to get things done. But there’s a lot of frustration on the tribal side.
Kyle Kirkland, president of the California Gaming Association, which represents many of the card clubs, said, “The tribal community has very strong feelings about the issues,” The card rooms feel very strongly about our position. We feel like we operate lawfully.”
Leland Kinter, chairman of the Youch Dehe Wintun Nation, disagrees. “The California penal code expressly bars the playing of blackjack as a prohibited game. Yet you can drive down streets and highways in our state and see billboards on which card rooms boldly advertise that they play Las Vegas style blackjack.”
He adds that while the law requires that card clubs rotate the dealer position, most of them don’t enforce that and allow dealers to be designated by players. Those dealers are usually employed by the casino. This violates the state constitution, which gave exclusive rights to Las Vegas style gaming to the tribes.
Stallings added that if the tribes can’t get the attention of the state on this matter that they may resort to the courts.
