search
News > Editorial & Letters
Thu 1/15 5 PM

Letters - 1/16/04

Print | E-mail | Comment (No comments posted.) | Text Size


Clarifies gaming laws

Editor, Index-Tribune: The statement in your recent editorial about tribal casinos that Proposition 1A made it possible for tribes to acquire land just about anywhere and open casinos is incorrect. Tribal land acquisition is controlled by federal law, not Proposition 1A, which said and did nothing about tribal land acquisition. All Proposition 1A did was to authorize the governor to negotiate, and the legislature to ratify, "Class III" gaming compacts with recognized tribal governments exercising jurisdiction over Indian lands. Those compacts may authorize specific forms of gaming (gaming devices, banked and percentage card games and any game or device permitted under state law to the California lottery), and provide for regulation of those gaming activities. The Graton Rancheria's ability to have land taken into trust as a restoration of the Rancheria that was improperly terminated back in the 1960s is conferred in the Act of Congress that restored the tribe's federal recognition. Proposition 1A has nothing to do with whether or where the tribe may have land taken into federal trust status, or whether, as a matter of federal law, gaming may be conducted on that land.

Before you get too cranked up at Congress, bear in mind that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) was passed as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 decision in California v. Cabazon, which held that the state has no jurisdiction to regulate gaming in Indian country if the state's public policy is to regulate, rather than prohibit, gambling. In that case, the court also held that California's public policy is to regulate, rather than prohibit, gambling. Thus, while IGRA assured tribal governments of the same right to conduct gaming for governmental purposes as state governments enjoy, it also limited the exercise of those rights and gave the states an opportunity to participate in the regulation of certain gaming activities that the states otherwise would not have. George Forman


Previous   Next
Letters - 1/16/04   Letters - 1/16/04

Reader Comments

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of www.sonomanews.com.

Submit a Comment

Please log in to comment:

*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Not registered yet? Sign up here! (registration is free)


Note: All fields are required

Personal Information
First Name:
Last Name:
Address:
City:
State:
ZIP code:
Phone:
Email:
(this will serve as your username)
Desired password:
Re-type password:
Return to: Editorial & Letters « | Home « | Top of Page ^