Most of those on either side of California’s Proposition 48 concede that although it addresses the gaming compact of one tribe, that of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, that it has ramifications that could double the number of Indian casinos in the state.
That’s because the tribe wants to build a casino on 305 acres that is “off-reservation,” which the tribe acquired by a term that critics refer to as “reservation shopping.”
The tribe seeks the right to run a casino with 2,000 slots near Highway 99. According to the tribe, many of its 2,000 members are poor and need the jobs and revenue the casino would generate. The 140 acres of their reservation is unusable for a casino and very far from any cities, they say.
It is the first such casino approved by California and the federal government and triggered opponents to pour money into qualifying a ballot initiative to put the vote to the public.
Governor Jerry Brown and the legislature have already approved of the compact. Prop. 48 seeks to overturn that decision.
Cheryl Schmit, director of Stand Up for California, a casino watchdog group that qualified Prop. 48 for the ballot, with considerable backing from some Indian casinos whose business would be challenged by the North Fork casino said that approving the compact would set a dangerous precedent that could lead to more casinos in urban areas.
That’s because it is very rare for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to approve of an off-reservation application. It requires a “two-part determination,” that includes a finding that the location is in the best interests of the tribe and the surrounding location, and an agreement by the state’s governor. Brown concurred in that finding in 2012.
He also wrote, “I expect there will be few requests from other tribes that will present the same kind of exceptional circumstances to support a similar expansion of tribal gaming land.”
Prop. 48 is somewhat confusing because it is a referendum, although a yes vote would endorse the North Fork gaming compact, Schmit and her allies gathered the signatures to put it on the ballot with the goal of stopping the casino. They have also raised about $11.6 million so far for the “no” campaign, compared to $418,000 by supporters of the proposition.
Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro commented, “Prop. 48 is not about Indian gaming. It is about a Las Vegas casino corporation making an end-run to locate a casino in an urban area.”
The tribe claims this is fear mongering and that the federal process for putting land into trust is rigorous. Tribal Vice Chairman Maryann McGovran wants voters to disregard the statewide implications of the tribe. For her, the maxim “all politics is local,” is applicable. “We would hope that the voters of California understand that this is a local decision,” she said last week.
Schmit disagrees. “This is a statewide issue,” she said. “If it happens here [in Madera County], it’s going to happen elsewhere.”
Although Prop. 48 is mainly about the North Fork compact, it also includes an item that would give money from that casino to the Wiyot tribe. The tribe is campaigning for Prop. 48. Recently a member of the tribe, Cheryl A. Seidner, told the Eureka Times Standard, “We are letting people know to have a yes vote on 48. Most of our Wiyot tribal citizens live in Humboldt County—we are hoping this will help us and will help the county.”
No matter which direction voters decide on Prop. 48 it is likely that the courts will ultimately decide. If Prop. 48 is defeated, many believe that the federal government can impose a casino on the state. In fact, Brown has predicted that this might happen.
