Should tribal compact amendments be authorized? Unless tribes accept, should
casino gaming be authorized for sixteen non-tribal establishments?
Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services.
- Authorizes Governor to negotiate tribal compact amendments requiring that Indian tribes pay 25% of slot machine/gaming device revenues to government fund, comply with multiple state laws, and accept state court jurisdiction.
- If compacted tribes don't unanimously accept required amendments within 90 days, or if determined unlawful, authorizes sixteen specified non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines/gaming devices, paying 33% of net revenues to fund government public safety, regulatory, social programs.
- Provides exemption from specified state/local tax increases.
Increased gambling revenues--potentially over
$1 billion annually--primarily to local governments for additional
specified services. Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations,
potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of
millions of dollars annually.
- A YES vote of this measure means:
- Slot machines would
be authorized at 16 specific
racetracks and card rooms,
unless all Indian tribes with
existing tribal-state gambling
compacts agree to certain
terms within 90 days. Under
either scenario, local governments
throughout the state
would receive new gambling
revenues, to be used primarily
for additional child protective,
police, and firefighting
services.
- A NO vote of this measure means:
- Slot machines would
not be authorized at racetracks
and card rooms. Indian
tribes would continue to be
subject to current tribal-state
gambling compacts. Local governments
would not receive
new gambling revenues.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 68:
- Proposition 68 means California's
immensely profitable
Indian Casinos should pay
their fair share to support
local services. Indian Casinos
choose to make a 25% contribution
and live by the same
regulations that affect us all or
the state will authorize limited
competition with an even bigger
return to communities.
Full Text of Argument In Favor
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 68:
- Beware: Their "fair share"
claim is a scam. 68 lets its
FUNDERS--RACETRACKS
and CARD CLUBS--operate
LAS VEGAS-SIZED CASINOS
throughout California--NEAR
FREEWAYS and 200 SCHOOLS.
MORE TRAFFIC. MORE
CRIME. ANOTHER BROKEN
PROMISE TO INDIANS. Governor
Schwarzenegger, fire-
fighters, sheriffs, police, tribes,
taxpayers, labor, educators say:
NO on 68!"
Full Text of Argument Against
- Contact FOR Proposition 68:
- Sheriff Lee Baca and Sheriff Lou Blanas
A Fair Share for California
1717 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-551-2538
info@fairshareforcalifornia.org
http://www.fairshareforcalifornia.org
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 68:
- No on 68: Californians Against the Deceptive Gambling Proposition
11300 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 840
Los Angeles, CA 90064
800-420-8202
info@Stop68.com
http://www.Stop68.com
|
|
Official Information
Secretary of State
Campaign Finance Information
Legislative Analysts's Office
Nonpartisan Information
Easy Voter Guide
League of Women Voters - Analysis
Other organizations
League of Women Voters - Background
Events
LWV Pros & Cons Public Meetings
- Come to a meeting in your community where League experts discuss all state ballot propositions giving a nonpartisan analysis. Consult your Smart Voter county page for dates, times and locations.
News and Analysis
California Connected
LA36 (Los Angeles Cable TV)
- Voter Minute
- a video guide (with transcript) to help you decide (Windows Media Player; opens in new window)
Google News Search
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
