Although California’s Proposition 48 technically only addresses the gaming compact signed between the North Fork Tribe of Mono Indians and the state, some residents in Barstow worry that if it is rejected that their dreams of an Indian casino in this desert town will die also. This is true even though Barstow is half a state away from the Mono tribe’s proposed casino, which is near Fresno.
That’s because the logic behind opposition to Prop. 48 is that it will stop tribes from attempting “reservation shopping,” i.e. purchasing land far from the tribe’s aboriginal homeland and putting it into trust for a reservation. The Mono tribe is the first tribe in the Golden State to win the right to create an off-reservation casino.
If the voters ratify the compact, the tribe will be able to build a 2,000-slot casino near Madera.
Former Barstow Mayor Lawrence Dale, who supports a proposal by the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians of San Diego County to put 23 acres into trust, says that if Prop. 48 fails, it could mean the end to the casino that many Barstow residents want in this town along Interstate 15 on the way to Nevada and Las Vegas. Dale and fellow supporters have worked on the proposal for a dozen years.
The tribe proposes a $160 million casino resort. Dale told the Daily Press, “The proposed Barstow casino is almost through the federal side, so all we have left is to go to the state and get its approval. Our casino would be similar to the one tied to Proposition 48. If we vote to oppose this and say no we could lose our move to try to bring the casino to Barstow.”
California’s senior senator Dianne Feinstein is an especially vocal opponent of “reservation shopping,” and has tried to tie a resolution of the issue to any action by the Senate to address the so-called Carcieri “fix” that tribal leaders want dealt with.
This puts her in direct opposition to Governor Jerry Brown, who is more open to off-reservation acquisitions of land.
Prop. 48 is a statewide issue of tremendous significance to both sides. The No on Prop. 48 forces recently earned the endorsement of several pastors, including two in Barstow, Joseph Green, pastor of the New Life Fellowship Church and Richard Parent, pastor of the Barstow Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Cheryl Schmit, director of Stand Up for California, which helped put Prop. 48 on the ballot in order to force a vote on the compact, says she is happy to get the support of religious leaders. She told Daily Press, “They also serve as evidence of the fact that religious leaders believe that off-reservation gaming breaks the promise made by tribes to the voters with the passage of Prop. 1A in 2000, where gaming was confined to original reservation land only. We look forward to working with these leaders and others in the weeks and months ahead to spread word that Prop. 48 is a bad deal for California.”
However the fight is also a battle between competing tribal interests. Several tribes that already have casinos and feel threatened by the thought of tribes being able to locate near urban areas have spent a lot of money to defeat Prop. 48. No on Prop. 48 so far has raised $6.7 million while the yes campaign has raised under $400,000. Donors include Table Mountain Rancheria, owner of Table Mountain Casino, Brigade Capital Management, which bankrolled Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino and the United Auburn Community, which operates a tribe in Northern California.
Despite the pile on against it, the Mono tribe recently had some good news in the legal realm. The Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, who in 2012 challenged Brown’s signing off on the federal permission to turn the land in Madera into reservation land, lost on appeal last week.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), although it normally does not allow off-reservation land to be used for casinos, makes some exceptions, as long as the state governor signs off on it. Brown agreed to the land transfer in 2012, a year after the Department of the Interior recommended putting the land into trust.
The Picayune tribe argued that Brown wasn’t allowed to make that decision without going through environmental review as provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Superior Court judge ruled against the tribe and for Brown and last week an appeals court upheld that ruling. The Third Appellate District found that despite the tribe’s arguments, that Brown was an individual and not a public agency, and thus not required by CEQA to file an EIR. In other words, Governor Brown was within his rights to allow the casino to go forward.
Last year a federal judge declined to prevent the Interior Department from putting the land into trust.
