|
PROPOSITION | 5 |
Yes: |
62.4 % |
No: |
37.6 % |
Measure: |
Passed |
The way it is now: The state of California has limits on legal gambling. It prohibits casino-style slot machines and allows horse racing, bingo for charitable purposes, and the California State Lottery.
What Prop. 5 would do: The state would be required to enter into an agreement to allow gambling such as lotteries, slot machines and horse race betting on Indian lands for those tribes that want to do this. If any tribe wants a different agreement, the Governor woud have to work out another one with them.
What it would cost: It is difficult to determine the cost.
P R O |
C O N |
|
ARGUMENTS |
This measure would protect Native Americans' rights to have limited gambling on their
tribal land. Prop 5 would help Indian tribes become more self-supporting. |
Federal law already guarantees that tribes can operate casinos with slot machines
on their lands with an agreement from the Governor. Prop 5 Indian gambling, which pays no taxes on casino winnings, would be expanded |
CONTACT INFORMATION |
Californians for Indian Self-Reliance |
Coalition Against Unregulated Gambling |
WHO SIGNED THE OFFICIAL BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS | Daniel Tucker, Chairman, Californians for Indian Self-Reliance; Mary Ann Andreas, Tribal Chairperson, Morongo Band of Mission Indians; David R. Edwards, Tribal Chairman, Tyme-Maidu Tribe. | Griselda Barajas, Small Business Owner; Jack Gribbon, California Political Director, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, AFL-CIO; Sheriff Glen Craig, Former President, California Police Officers' Association. |
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS |
Follow the money - CVF has compiled summary campaign finance information and a list of top ten contributors for each ballot measure committee that has filed a report with the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the full text of this measure.
The California Journal - provides independent, in-depth analysis, including background on the issue and arguments for and against the measure.
The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.
This page first published October 1, 1998
Final update December 12, 1998
Back to the '98 General Online Voter Guide homepage
The California Online Voter Guide
is a project of the
California Voter Foundation
www.calvoter.org
© Copyright 1994-98.
All rights reserved.