indian gaming, public opinion, &
policy in california
presented at the
University of California, Irvine
UROP Symposium
by
Ronald R. Baldonado
May 14, 2005
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
introduction
introduction


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)
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”
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
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]
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?
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
results – views on expansion
Office of the
Governor
State
Legislature
General Public
Opinion
Native
Americans
“Californians
didn’t vote for
the
Lytton Compact
“Two-thirds
approval of
‘Nevada-style
gaming’ on
Indian lands
only.
Expansion
should be
driven by
market forces
‘Nevadatization’
of California.”
(LA Times Poll)
results – views on taxation
Office of
Governor
State
Legislature
General
Public Opinion
“Corporate Tax “Contribution rate
“A strong
(8.84%) is
should be more
majority of
misleading.”
than the
Californians
corporate tax.
believe Indian
To decide
Each compact
tribes that own
taxation, must
needs to
casinos should
take into
consider the
pay more of their
account: 1)
unique attributes
gambling
demands of
of each tribe. A
revenue to the
infrastructure; 2)
one size fits all
state.”
likely impacts;
support compact
and 3) prospects mentality doesn’t 63%renegotiation
work.”
of earning money
(LA Times – 4/2004)
Native
Americans
Corporate Tax
versus
25%
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
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
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
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
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