Californians Face Vote on Indian Casino Expansions

As often is the case in the gambling world, it has become a case of the rich fighting the rich over who gets to get richer.

February 5th is Super Tuesday, the day 22 states will vote in Democratic and Republican primaries to decide Presidential candidates. It is also an extremely important voting day in California, as voters will decide whether to approve four measures that would a group of Indian tribes to more than double their slot operations, from an existing 2000 slot machines per tribe to a new combined total of 17,000.

The Pechanga, Agua Caliente, Sycuan, and Morongo tribes argue that increasing the numbers of slots will help the state as much as the tribe. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office has found that, if approved, the new machines would generate $200 million for California's cash-strapped budget per year.

However, opponents charge that the amount of revenue would be insignificant next to the state's $100 billion budget and expected $14 billion shortfall. Arguments have also been made that voters who originally aproved casinos did not anticipate a rapid growth and expansion of existing facilities.

As often is the case in the gambling world, it has become a case of the rich fighting the rich over who gets to get richer. The two sides have between them spent $100 million on ad campaigns. The tribes involved are among the most wealthy and politically influential in the country. Even the Department of the Interior, despite its repeated and desperate attempts to block Indian casinos, conveniently lost paperwork on the California proposals until they were automatically approved by time constraints.

The opponents are largely made up of special interests looking to avoid increased competition. Terry Fancher, a vocal leader of the "vote no" group, is involved in ownership of the Las Vegas Sahara Casino and the Hollywood Park and Bay Meadow racetracks. The Pala Tribe, which has voiced opposition, is in direct competition with the Pechanga. 

Perhaps the decision should come down to what is best for the state, rather than either group. Since the state currently receives no money from the tribes for their current operations, it seems obvious an expansion that allows the state to benefit in revenue from both new and old slots would be reasonable and sensible.