BILL NUMBER: AB 1443 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 29, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 15, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 6, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Huffman
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
An act to add Section 12012.87 to the Government Code, relating to
gaming.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1443, as amended, Huffman. Gaming compacts: local support.
The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides for the
negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the
purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within
a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to
negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the
Legislature.
This bill would authorize require
the Governor to consider the presence or absence of local support
when negotiating a tribal-state gaming compact to allow class III
gaming on Indian lands, as specified. The bill would include a
related statement of legislative findings and declarations.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA)
authorizes federally recognized Indian tribes to conduct class III
gaming on Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction, to the extent
those games are permitted by state law, and pursuant to a gaming
compact negotiated between a tribe and the state.
(b) IGRA requires the state to negotiate in good faith for the
conclusion of tribal-state gaming compacts with Indian tribes that
request negotiations when those tribes have eligible Indian lands
located in the state.
(c) In 1998, California voters approved Proposition 5, a statutory
measure designed to allow for the operation of slot machine and
house banked card gaming by California Indian tribes on Indian lands
in accordance with federal law. In 1999, the California Supreme Court
held that most of the provisions enacted by Proposition 5 were
unconstitutional.
(d) In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 1A, amending
the California Constitution to authorize the Governor to negotiate
and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature,
for the operation of slot machines, and for the conduct of lottery
games and banked and percentage card games by federally recognized
Indian tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with
federal law.
(e) During the campaigns to approve Propositions 5 and 1A,
proponents assured California voters that Indian lands were mainly in
remote, rural areas of the state and that approval of these measures
would not result in tribal casinos being located in urban areas.
(f) In the general election of 2004, two initiative measures,
Propositions 68 and 70, that would have expanded gaming activities in
urban areas were placed before the California voters.
(g) Proposition 68 was defeated with 83.8 percent of the
electorate voting against it and Proposition 70 was defeated with
76.3 percent of the electorate voting against it.
(h) There is increasing public concern over the location,
expansion, and impact of tribal gaming on nontribal lands in
California.
(i) There are over 100 federally recognized Indian tribes in
California and many of those tribes have Indian lands within the
tribe's jurisdiction that are eligible for class III gaming.
(j) Subdivision (d) of Section 12012.25 of the Government Code
designates the Governor as the state official with authority to
negotiate and execute tribal gaming compacts on behalf of the state.
(k) Subdivisions (c) and (e) of Section 12012.25 of the Government
Code provide that tribal-state gaming compacts negotiated by the
Governor are subject to ratification by the Legislature.
(l) An increasing number of Indian tribes are seeking to take new
land into trust for purposes of conducting class III gaming
activities pursuant to the provisions of IGRA, often in urban areas.
(m) In May 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a
proclamation that he would (1) oppose proposals for the federal
acquisition of lands within any urbanized area where the lands sought
to be acquired in trust are to be used to conduct or facilitate
gaming activities; (2) decline to engage in negotiations for
tribal-state gaming compacts where the Indian tribe does not have
Indian lands eligible for class III gaming; (3) consider requests for
gubernatorial concurrence to allow a tribe to conduct class III
gaming on newly acquired land only when (A) the land that is sought
for class III gaming is not within any urbanized area, (B) the local
jurisdiction in which the tribe's proposed gaming project is located
supports the project, (C) the tribe and the local jurisdiction
demonstrate that the affected local community supports the project,
such as by a local advisory vote, and (D) the project substantially
serves a clear, independent public policy, separate and apart from
any increased economic benefit or financial contribution to the
state, community, or the Indian tribe that may arise from gaming.
(n) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature, with respect to
all Indian gaming proposals on nontribal lands, to encourage the
Governor to negotiate a tribal-state gaming compact only when land
has been taken into trust and when the local jurisdiction and the
local community in which the tribe's proposed gaming project would be
located actually support the project, and, in the absence of that
local support, it is the intent of the Legislature not to ratify the
compact.
SEC. 2. Section 12012.87 is added to the Government Code, to read:
12012.87. When engaging in negotiations for a tribal-state gaming
compact to allow class III gaming on Indian lands within the tribe's
jurisdiction, the Governor may shall
consider the presence or absence of local support demonstrated by
both of the following:
(a) The results of an advisory vote in the county or counties in
which the tribe's Indian lands are located, either approving or
disapproving a proposed gaming facility.
(b) One or more intergovernmental agreements enforceable in state
court, that include provisions to mitigate the impacts of the
proposed gaming and related activities, executed by the Indian tribe
and each of the following entities:
(1) The incorporated city or city and county in which the Indian
lands are located, or, if the land is not located within an
incorporated city or city and county, the county or counties in which
the land is located.
(2) Each county that is contiguous to the county in which the land
is located and that is likely to be substantially impacted by the
proposed gaming and related activities, as reasonably determined by
the board of supervisors of the county and set forth in a measure
specifying the nature of anticipated impacts that are no more than 75
miles from the proposed gaming facility, and the estimated costs of
mitigation.