——   California Indian gaming history
——   Landmark court cases
——   Indian gaming historical timeline
——   IGRA

California Indian Gaming – A History
Click the thumbnail to enlarge the poster —
 
  Indian Gaming - Beginnings  
   
  According to the 1990 U.S. Census, almost two million people identified themselves as American Indian. Of these, 30.9 percent lived in poverty - that is, they earned $12,674 a year for a family of four. Additionally, their life expectancy rate was 47 years of age compared to the Euro-American average of 78; unemployment rates were often ten times the national average; and Indian Country had higher than the national average rates of teen suicides, alcoholism, and spousal abuse.

In the hopes that they could generate new revenues and provide steady and well-paid employment for tribal members, several tribal governments began experimenting with bingo games that offered large prizes. Indeed, after decades of poverty and high unemployment on often geographically remote reservations, Indian people began to see gaming as an integral part of tribal economies and a means to exercise tribal sovereignty. In other words, Indian Nations increasingly have seen gambling as just one more arena in which they should be free to manage their own affairs, unimpeded by either state or federal oversight.

Indian gaming is not new to either Indian people or to Euro-Americans. Indeed, gaming has played a role for hundreds of years in traditional tribal ceremonies and celebrations. As such, Indians were involved in various gambling operating long before Europeans came to America. Likewise, gaming has been a part of United States history from the colonial era through today. Lotteries were critical to funding the Revolutionary War and the colonization of America, and even helped fund the beginning of Harvard and Princeton Universities.

Casinos became part of the American gambling landscape in 1931 when Nevada became the first state to authorize such gaming. In 1977, New Jersey followed suit in Atlantic City, and by 1998, the California Legislative Analyst's Office reported that if Indian casinos were counted, a total of 27 states allowed casino-style gambling.

Today, gambling is allowed in 48 states and takes many forms - casinos, lotteries, pari-mutuel wagering on horse and dog races, card games, bingo, and charitable fund-raising. ((Pari-mutuel betting occurs when all wagers go into a common prize pool, and management receives a specific "take-out" that is subtracted from the pool.)

After the recent introduction of modern gaming in Indian Country, an ongoing and contentious public debate evolved and continues into the 21st Century. The debate originated in the late 1970s when the Seminole Nation paid close attention to a trend within several state governments -establishing gambling lotteries to bring in badly-needed new revenues. Following the lead of such states, the Seminoles opened a bingo parlor. When Florida threatened to close the Seminole operation because it violated state law by offering high prizes, the Seminole sued in federal courts.

Thereafter, two distinct court cases - one in Florida and the other in California - shaped the future for Indian gaming: Seminole Tribe vs. Butterworth (1979) and California vs. Cabazon Band (1987). In both cases, the courts ruled as follows:

• If state law criminally prohibits a form of gambling, then the tribes within the state may not engage in that activity.
• If state law merely regulates a particular form of gambling, then the tribes within the state may engage in that gaming free of state control.

The Indians' had the right to conduct gaming operations on their own land, as long as gaming such as bingo or "Las Vegas" nights were not criminally prohibited by the state.

Although both cases clearly held that Indians had the right to conduct gaming operating on their reservations, they also ruled that tribal gaming had to comply with the criminal and gaming laws of each state.

Consequently by the turn of the 21st Century, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) reported that 212 Indian tribes in 24 states operated 267 Indian gaming casinos, 60 of which were located in California. Although in 1999, Indian gaming represented less than 10 percent, or $9.6 billion profit, of all gambling within the United States, it was the fastest growing area in the entire gaming industry.
Clearly, gaming on American Indian reservations has become big business. Not surprisingly, the original debate about tribal gaming has also acquired a new direction - the question of which types of gaming will and will not be allowed in Indian Country

  
     
  California Before Propositions 5 & 1A  
   
  California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians  
   
  The Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians in California were involved in a dispute with the State of California and Riverside County over the profitability and legality of their lucrative Indian bingo and card games business. The tribes believed that they had a right to administer their gaming operations as sovereign entities, independent of state and municipal restrictions that effectively prohibited their activities.
California and Riverside County sought to stop Cabazon and Morongo from conducting high-stakes bingo and card games by arguing that Public Law 280 gave the State of California the right to enforce Penal Code 326.5 which only allows the games if operated by a charitable organization who cannot be paid for their services and requires that all profits be held in "special accounts and used only for charitable purposes." (California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al., 480 U.S. 202,107 S. Ct 1083). The County of Riverside, in addition, sought to impose their County Ordinances 558 and 331, which prohibited draw poker and other card games.
On December 9, 1986, the California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. argued in the Supreme Court on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit. On February 25, 1987, the Supreme Court made it's ruling. The logic of Cabazon revolved on the question of whether California's laws regarding bingo operations were civil or criminal law. The United States Supreme Court decided that California's law regarding bingo were in fact, not criminal, but civil/regulatory, because California did not prohibit all bingo operations.
In addition, the Supreme Court pointed to California's many other state sanctioned forms of gaming such as the state lottery and held that the tribes were free to conduct their games free from the state and county restrictions.
The Cabazon decision is important because it implies that any state permitting gambling is powerless to prevent tribes from conducting the same business. The Court decided that California and Riverside County could not enforce their anti-gambling laws on the Indian reservations involved in the case. While the federal government had given California the right to enforce criminal prohibitory laws on Indian reservations within the State when it passed Public Law 280, the State and County anti-gambling laws were not criminally prohibitory.
However, while the Court held that California and Riverside County could not ban bingo and card games, it should be noted that the decision does not say that such games are beyond regulation by other entities. In fact, the Court said, "the Federal Government has the authority to forbid Indian gambling enterprises." There also seems to be little doubt that the tribal government could ban such games from their own reservations if they so desired.
Prior to the approval of Proposition 5 and the subsequent Proposition 1A, the California State Constitution and various other state laws limited the types of legal gambling in California. The State Constitution specifically:

• Authorized the California State Lottery, but prohibited any other lottery.
• Allowed horse racing and wagering on the results of races.
• Allowed bingo for charitable purposes (regulated by cities and counties).
• Prohibited Nevada- and New Jersey-type casinos.

Other State laws allowed gambling in card rooms. Card games (such as poker) could be played only if the card room did not have a stake in outcome of the game. State law specifically prohibited many games (such as twenty-one), and it also prohibited the operation of any slot machine or other gambling device

 
     
  California Indian Gaming – 1998 to Present  
   
 
Passage of the IGRA did not mark the end of disputes or controversy between the state and the tribes. In California the governor and the tribes attempted to negotiate gaming contracts as prescribed by state and federal law. At the heart of the issue was the tribes' desire to continue to offer slot machine gambling in their casinos, even though it was outlawed by the California Constitution at the time.

Although Governor Wilson negotiated a compact with the Pala Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County on March 6, 1998, which was to be a model compact for the other tribes, the strict limit it placed on the type and number of lottery-style machines was anathema to California gaming tribes. In record time and with record spending, the tribes qualified Proposition 5 for the November 1998 ballot, taking the issue of Indian gaming to California voters.

In November 1998 California voters passed Proposition 5, the "Tribal Government Gaming and Economic Self-Sufficiency Act of 1998," a statutory initiative, which required the governor to approve any tribal casino proposal. It placed no limits on the number of casinos statewide or the number of gambling machines and tables each casino could operate. It lowered the gambling age to 18, and allowed the tribes to continue using the video slot machines that the state and federal governments had deemed illegal. Under terms of the initiative, tribal casinos would be self-regulated, governed by a tribal-appointed gaming board.

There would be no direct state or local involvement in casino operations. The initiative set up a fund designed to reimburse local governments for their costs associated with casino operations. It also allocated two percent of casino net profits to non-gaming tribes.

The campaign to qualify and pass Proposition 5 was the most expensive in history at the time--$90 million in total spending. In addition to money spent to qualify and pass the initiative, California Indians spent another $5 million backing political candidates including Governor Gray Davis, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-San Fernando), who became chair of the Assembly Budget Committee. Despite the fiscal investment the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 5 on August 24, 1999. The Court said that the proposition violated the 1984 state Lottery Act, an initiative constitutional amendment that banned casino-style gambling in California.

In response to the nullification of Proposition 5, Governor Gray Davis negotiated new tribal-state compacts with nearly 60 tribes allowing them to expand current gambling operations, allowing Nevada-style gambling in California, legalizing video slot machines, allowing casino employees to unionize and providing up to $1.1 million annually for non-gaming tribes. Indians would also make quarterly payments based on the number of slot machines they owned to reimburse the state for gambling addiction programs and the impact of casinos on local jurisdictions.

The compacts were contingent on the passage of Proposition 1A, an initiative constitutional amendment which appeared on the March 7, 2000 ballot. California voters approved the measure by a 65% margin. The tribes spent approximately $30 million on the campaign as opposed to the nearly $70 million the tribes spent on Proposition 5.

The Nevada casinos did not mount an anti-Proposition 1A campaign, as they did against Proposition 5. In April 2000 four Bay Area card clubs and two Northern California charities, fearful of losing business to full-fledged casinos, asked the federal government to declare Proposition 1A invalid on the grounds that it offers preferential treatment based on ethnicity and was therefore unconstitutional. On December 22, 2003, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Proposition 1A finding that federal law allows states to grant Indian tribes a monopoly on Nevada-style casinos, Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino, et al. v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

Since the passage of Proposition 1A Indian gaming has generated billions in annual revenue in California and California Indians have become the largest contributors to California political campaigns. Gaming has become so lucrative that hundreds of Native Americans are petitioning the Bureau of Indian Affairs for recognition of new California tribes in order to buy land and build casinos.

 
     
  A New Governor – A New Era  
   
 
During the 2003 gubernatorial recall campaign, candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger called on California’s gaming tribes to contribute more of their gambling revenue to the state, up to 25%, which would translate into $1.25 billion per year. However, in his first state budget Governor Schwarzenegger projected revenues from the tribes of only $500 million. Tribes currently pay about $130 million into two state funds to help tribes that have no gambling operations.

On January 7, 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed a former appeals court judge and Governor Wilson’s chief counsel, Daniel Kolkey, to renegotiate compacts with casino-owning tribes. One of the critical negotiating issues was whether to increase the number of slot machines allowed per tribe in return for more state revenue from gaming operations. Under existing compacts each tribe was limited to 2,000 slot machines, which could pay up to $300/day/machine.

While Kolkey negotiated with the tribes, a coalition of eleven California card clubs and five California racetracks qualified an initiative for the November 2004 ballot, the "Gambling Revenue Act of 2004," which became Proposition 68. Proposition 68 would require all 53 gambling tribes to pay 25% of their net slot machine revenue to the state. Refusal by even one tribe to pay would trigger a provision allowing racetracks and card clubs to install slot machines at their sites, thus breaking the tribes’ monopoly on casino-style gambling. The racetracks and card clubs would pay 33% of their revenues, estimated to be about $1 billion/year, into a trust fund which would support law enforcement, firefighters, and programs serving abused children.

The tribes countered this measure on two fronts. Several tribes agreed to spend $1.5 million each to defeat the measure in November, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians qualified a competing November initiative measure, the "Indian Gaming Fair-Share Revenue Act of 2004," which became Proposition 70. This initiative would require the gaming tribes to pay 8.84%/year in taxes on their gambling revenue, equal to the state’s corporate tax rate, and would remove all limits on the scope and size of gambling the tribes could offer in their casinos. Governor Schwarzenegger initially took no public stand on the two ballot measures then announced his opposition to both.

On June 21, 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a set of compacts with five leading gaming tribes. The governor took the position that the new compacts were a better deal for the gaming tribes and California taxpayers than the two November ballot propositions.

The compacts preserve the tribes' monopoly on casino-style gambling, but require the tribes to make an initial $1 billion payment to the state, which Schwarzenegger pledged to allocate to transportation, and thereafter annual payments estimated to range between $150 million and $275 million.

Under the compacts tribes may exceed the 2000 limit on the number of slot machines, but must pay increasingly more to do so. Tribes must also submit to various environmental, labor relations, and building safety constraints. Significantly, tribes must abide by binding arbitration in certain kinds of disputes with local governments and customers. The compacts were approved by the state legislature, as all such compacts must be.

The governor negotiated five additional compacts in August 2004, and the legislature approved all but one involving a controversial casino expansion in the city of San Pablo. Voters rejected both Propositions 68 and 70 in the November 2004 election. The passage of either proposition would have undone all of the compacts negotiated by the governor.

  
     
  Brief Timeline of Proposition 5 and Proposition 1A  
   
  March 1998
• Governor Wilson concludes negotiations with the Pala Band of Mission Indians to permit a specific type of Class III gambling on tribal land. The compact, known as the “Pala” Compact, resulting from these negotiations is subsequently signed by 10 other tribes. Other tribes who did not sign the compact begin gathering signatures to place what will eventually be known as Proposition 5 on the ballot.

November 1998
• California voters approve the Tribal Government Gaming and Economic Self-Sufficiency Act (Proposition 5) by a vote of 62.4%.
? The proposition, which amended state law but not the State Constitution, requires the state to enter into a specific compact with Indian tribes to allow certain Class III gambling activities on Indian reservations.

December 1998
• The California Supreme Court enjoins the implementation of Proposition 5 as it considers lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Indian gaming initiative.

August 1999
• Proposition 5, merely a statutory amendment, was ruled unconstitutional by the California State Supreme Court on the basis that the measure would permit the operation of Nevada- and New Jersey-type casinos without expressly amending the State Constitution.

September 1999
• Governor Gray Davis negotiates and the Legislature approves compacts with 58 tribes – including the tribes that signed the Pala compacts – authorizing certain Class III games. These replace all previously approved compacts, including the Pala compacts. These new compacts, however, are to become effective only if (1) a subsequent gaming proposition (what becomes known as Proposition 1A) is approved and (2) the federal government approves the compacts.
• The California Legislature approves Senate Constitutional Amendment 11 (SCA 11), which proposes an amendment to the California Constitution permitting Indian gaming. SCA 11 allows a legislative constitutional amendment (known as Proposition 1A) to be put on the March 2000 primary election ballot.

March 2000
• California voters approve Proposition 1A by 64.5%, which amended the State Constitution to allow Indian gaming.

May 2000
• The federal government approves the 58 tribal-state compacts negotiated by the Governor in September 1999.

 
  The voters approved Proposition 5 in November 1998, but it was immediately challenged. In December, the California Supreme Court put the proposition on hold as it considered lawsuits disputing the constitutionality of the initiative.  
     
  California Supreme Court Ruling  
   
 
In November 1984, through a referendum, the people of California voted to amend the State’s Constitution to state a fundamental public policy against the legalization in California of casino gambling of the sort then associated with Las Vegas and Atlantic City. (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 19, subd. (e), added by initiative, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 1984).)

In August 1999, Proposition 5 was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court on the basis that the statutory initiative would permit the operation of Nevada- and New Jersey-type casinos.

The California Supreme Court held that to authorize such gaming facilities allowed in Proposition 5, however, would be to authorize casinos of the type expressly prohibited by article IV, section 19, subdivision (e) of the California Constitution.

Because Proposition 5, a purely statutory measure, did not amend section 19(e) or any other part of the Constitution, and because in a conflict between statutory and constitutional law the Constitution must prevail, the Court held that Proposition 5’s authorization of casino gambling was invalid and inoperative. Under the California Constitution, the Legislature has no power to authorize, and shall prohibit, casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey. The Court’s decision stuck down Proposition 5 prohibiting the Governor from taking any action to implement it. (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union v. Davis, 21 Cal.4th 585 (1999)).

 
     
  Senate Constitutional Amendment 11 (SCA 11):  
   
  After the State Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 5 was unconstitutional, Governor Gray Davis began negotiating compacts with several tribes to authorize gaming on Indian lands. In September 1999, the Governor negotiated and the Legislature approved compacts with 58 tribes – including the tribes that signed the Pala compacts – authorizing certain Class III games. The new compacts took the place of all previously approved compacts, including the Pala compacts. However, the new compacts only became effective if (1) the new proposition (eventually known as Proposition 1A) was approved and (2) the federal government approved the compacts.

In September 1999, the California Legislature approved Senate Constitutional Amendment 11 (SCA 11), which proposed an amendment to section 19 of the California Constitution to be approved by a referendum of the voters. The constitutional amendment proposed by SCA 11 would authorize the Governor to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature, for the operation of slot machines, lottery games, banked card games, and percentage card games (where the house collects a given share of the amount wagered) by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with federal law.
Passage of SCA 11 by the California Legislature allowed Proposition 1A to be placed on the March 2000 primary election ballot.

  
     
  Proposition 1A  
   
  On the March 2000 primary election ballot, the California voters approved Proposition 1A by a vote of 64.5%. The proposition amended the State Constitution to permit Indian tribes to conduct and operate slot machines, lottery games, and banked and percentage card games on Indian lands, if: (1) the Governor and an Indian tribe reach agreement on a compact, (2) the Legislature approves the compact, and (3) the federal government approves the compact.

With the approval of Proposition 1A, the 58 tribal-state gambling compacts previously approved by the State would go into effect if approved by the federal government.

  
     
  The September 1999 Compacts  
   
  On September 10, 1999, fifty-eight (58) tribal governments signed tribal-state compacts with Governor Gray Davis. The compacts were signed by the Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, and printed in the Federal Register on May 16, 2000. Since September 1999, additional tribes have signed tribal-state gaming compacts bringing the total number of compacts in California to well over 60.

The major provisions of the 1999 compacts were:

Slot Machines
• The compacts allow each tribe at least 350 slot machines.
• Tribes may pay for licenses for additional machines, but generally may not operate more than 2,000 machines.
Revenue Sharing Trust Fund
• Tribes will make quarterly payments into this fund based on the number of licensed slot machines they operate. The money will be used to provide annual payments to noncompact tribes and those tribes operating fewer than 350 machines. These payments could be up to $1.1 million per tribe per year.
Special Distribution Fund
• Tribes will make quarterly payments into this state fund (beginning in 2002) based on the number of machines they were operating as of September 1, 1999.
• The Legislature could spend monies from the fund for the following statewide purposes: (1) grants for programs to address gambling addiction, (2) grants to the state and local governments affected by tribal gaming, (3) reimbursements of state regulatory costs, (4) payment of shortfalls in the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund, and (5) other purposes specified by the Legislature.
Banked and Percentage Card Games
• The compact places no limit on the types or quantity of card games tribes could offer. Other Provisions
• The compacts authorize casino workers to unionize.
• They set the age for gambling in Indian casinos at 18.

  
   

Indian Gaming - Landmark Court Cases
     
  Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida  
   
  The state of Florida had legalized bingo for nonprofit entities. The state had adopted specific laws governing bingo, including prize limits and hours of operation. In 1979, the Seminole tribe opened a high stakes bingo parlor that did not comply with many of the state laws. They were the first federally recognized Indian tribe in the U.S. to operate a high-stakes bingo operation on a reservation.

The Sheriff of Broward County, the site of the bingo parlor, threatened to close the operation down. Florida, like California, is a Public Law 280 state, meaning that Congress granted the state the authority to enforce the state's criminal laws on reservations. The tribe sued to prevent the action.

In the first important decision in a modern Indian gaming case, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the arguments of the State of Florida. The Court found that the relevant question was whether gambling, or more specifically bingo, was prohibited in Florida or was it merely regulated. If it was prohibited, then clearly the state could act to prevent gaming on Indian lands. But since Florida allowed charitable bingo, then bingo was regulated rather than prohibited within the state and was a civil rather than a criminal issue. States are severely restricted in enforcing their civil jurisdiction on Indian reservations. The tribe was allowed to continue their operations.
  
     
  California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians  
   
  The Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians in California were involved in a dispute with the State of California and Riverside County over the profitability and legality of their lucrative Indian bingo and card games business. The tribes believed that they had a right to administer their gaming operations as sovereign entities, independent of state and municipal restrictions that effectively prohibited their activities.
California and Riverside County sought to stop Cabazon and Morongo from conducting high-stakes bingo and card games by arguing that Public Law 280 gave the State of California the right to enforce Penal Code 326.5 which only allows the games if operated by a charitable organization who cannot be paid for their services and requires that all profits be held in "special accounts and used only for charitable purposes." (California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al., 480 U.S. 202,107 S. Ct 1083). The County of Riverside, in addition, sought to impose their County Ordinances 558 and 331, which prohibited draw poker and other card games.
On December 9, 1986, the California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. argued in the Supreme Court on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit. On February 25, 1987, the Supreme Court made it's ruling. The logic of Cabazon revolved on the question of whether California's laws regarding bingo operations were civil or criminal law. The United States Supreme Court decided that California's law regarding bingo were in fact, not criminal, but civil/regulatory, because California did not prohibit all bingo operations. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed to California's many other state sanctioned forms of gaming such as the state lottery and held that the tribes were free to conduct their games free from the state and county restrictions.

The Cabazon decision is important because it implies that any state permitting gambling is powerless to prevent tribes from conducting the same business. The Court decided that California and Riverside County could not enforce their anti-gambling laws on the Indian reservations involved in the case. While the federal government had given California the right to enforce criminal prohibitory laws on Indian reservations within the State when it passed Public Law 280, the State and County anti-gambling laws were not criminally prohibitory.
However, while the Court held that California and Riverside County could not ban bingo and card games, it should be noted that the decision does not say that such games are beyond regulation by other entities. In fact, the Court said, "the Federal Government has the authority to forbid Indian gambling enterprises." There also seems to be little doubt that the tribal government could ban such games from their own reservations if they so desired.		  
     

Indian gaming in California – Historical Timeline
     
  1953  
  Congress enacts Public Law 83-280, conferring civil and criminal jurisdiction of five states over tribes.  
     
  1976  
  The Supreme Court in Bryan -v- Itasca County rules state have criminal and civil jurisdiction but not regulatory jurisdiction over Indian Tribes.  
     
  1979  
  In Seminole Tribe v Butterworth, a Florida court applies the Bryan decision to Florida's bingo laws. The court determines the state cannot prohibit Indian bingo because it does not have regulatory power over the tribe.  
     
  October 1980  
  The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians opens the Desert Oasis Casino poker parlor on its reservation near Indio. Police clad in riot gear raid it within days, triggering years of lawsuits.  
     
  1983  
  Both the Cabazons and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians open high-stakes bingo parlors.  
     
  1984  
  California voters approve the California Lottery Act, authorizing the state to operate a lottery while prohibiting "casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey."  
     
  1987  
  In California -v- Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Supreme Court considers the same question presented in the Butterworth case. Like the court in Butterworth, the Supreme Court rules the grant to civil jurisdiction does not include regulatory authority; therefore, the state laws relating to gaming cannot be enforced against Indians.  
     
  1988  
  The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) is enacted by Congress to provide for regulation of gaming by Indian tribes and creates three classes of gaming.

Riverside County begins offering off-track betting at its Shalimar Sports Center in Indio.

 
     
  1989  
 

California Gov. George Deukmejian negotiates off-track betting compacts with five Indian tribes, including the Cabazon band. The tribe opens an off-track betting parlor in competition with Shalimar Sports Center.

 
     
  1991  
  A handful of California tribes begin operating video pull-tab machines, arguing that the slot-machine-like devices don’t require compacts because they simulate "Class II" paper pull-tabs you can buy at bingo halls.  
     
  December 1991  
  Sixteen Indian tribes begin joint compact negotiations with Gov. Pete Wilson. The two sides agree to take their dispute to federal court. The case becomes known as Rumsey Rancheria of Wintun Indians vs. Wilson.  
     
  January 1992  
  Members of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians vote to legalize gambling on their reservation.  
     
  November 1992  
  Desert Hot Springs residents vote to permit poker card rooms. Developer Chong Lee later opens the Mirage Springs Casino after a lengthy delay and loses the Mirage Springs Hotel through bankruptcy. In Palm Springs, the Agua Calientes choose Caesars World, operators of Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, to finance and operate a casino later dubbed Caesars Palm Springs.  
     
  May 1994  
  A federal grand jury indicts four non-Indians on 24 counts of violating various federal laws in their operation of Casino Morongo for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. A judge dismissed 23 of the 24 counts, but the charges were reinstated and in November 1996 the men pleaded guilty to one felony count each of running an illegal gambling business.  
     
  June 1994  
  The Cabazons rename Indio Bingo Palace and Casino, calling it Fantasy Springs Casino.  
     
  August 1994  
  The Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians breaks ground on the $11 million Spotlight 29 Casino financed by Las Vegas-based Elsinore Corp.  
     
  December 1994  
  After lawsuits complicate plans to build Caesars Palm Springs, the Agua Calientes announce they will open an interim casino in the tribe-owned Spa Hotel featuring only poker, blackjack and other card games.  
     
  January 1995  
  Spotlight 29 opens, offering only bingo, poker, and variants of blackjack, none of which require state approval.  
     
  March 1995  
  Saying Spotlight 29 wasn’t making any money, the Twentynine Palms band breaks with Elsinore Corp. and installs 72 Wild-Fire video gaming machines in Spotlight 29.  
     
  April 1995  
  The Agua Calientes and Caesars World stun the community by announcing they’re canceling plans for Caesars Palm Springs. Only days later, the tribe opens the Spa Casino with video gaming machines.  
     
  November 1995  
  Voters in Coachella and Palm Springs authorize poker card rooms in their cities. None are ever built.  
     
  October 1996  
  Governor Wilson begins negotiating a video gambling compact with the Pala Band of Mission Indians.  
     
  March 1998  
  Wilson and the Pala band unveil a video gambling compact. The tribe can operate a new, undeveloped form of video gambling machines, but must abide by a variety of state-imposed restrictions. Ten other tribes later sign versions of the Pala compact, some under threat of having their casinos immediately shut down. Other tribes that pulled out of the negotiations begin gathering signatures to place what will eventually be known as Proposition 5 on the ballot. Proposition 5 would essentially overturn the Pala compact.  
     
  November 1998  
  The Tribal Government Gaming and Economic Self-Sufficiency Act, known as Proposition 5, receives 62 percent of the vote on Nov. 3, legalizing video gaming machines on Indian reservations and guaranteeing tribes the right to operate casinos under favorable state-approved terms.  
     
  December 1998  
  The California Supreme Court puts Proposition 5 on hold as it considers lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Indian gaming initiative.  
     
  January 1999  
  The change in governors results in a change of the state’s official position on the constitutionality of Proposition 5. The state Supreme Court grants new Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s request to withdraw arguments submitted by his predecessor, Dan Lungren, expressing Gov. Pete Wilson’s view that the initiative violated the state Constitution.  
     
  April 1999  
  Gov. Gray Davis and his special counsel for tribal affairs meets with representatives from most of California’s 107 tribes, promising cooperation as state and Indian leaders begin negotiating new gambling compacts.  
     
  June 1999  
  Supporters and opponents of expanded gambling on California Indian reservations argued before the state Supreme Court whether Proposition 5 violates a legal ban on Nevada-style casinos.  
     
  August 1999  
 

The state Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 5, leaving the future of tribal casinos in California unclear.

Governor Gray Davis meets with representatives of 25 California tribes to discuss a possible interim compact that would keep casinos open until voters weigh in on the subject again.

Supporters continue gathering signatures to put another gaming initiative on the 2000 state ballot.

 
     
  September 1999  
  Adding new urgency to ongoing negotiations between California gaming tribes and Gov. Gray Davis, federal prosecutors threaten to shut down the casinos of tribes that don’t negotiate gaming agreements by Oct. 13.

Forty tribes agree to sign a gaming deal with Gov. Gray Davis, according to a press statement issued by tribal leaders.

The Agua Caliente tribe remains a holdout, as Tribal Chairman Richard Milanovich calls the governor’s proposal unacceptable. The tribe decides days later to sign on as well.

 
     
  March 2000  
  California voters approve Proposition 1A, which amended the state Constitution to allow Indian gaming. The vote also signaled the beginning of an era of expansion of tribal gaming.  
   

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) - Overview
     
  The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), enacted in 1988 as Public Law 100-497 and now codified at 25 U.S.C. §2701, establishes the jurisdictional framework that presently governs Indian gaming. The Act establishes three classes of games with a different regulatory scheme for each. Class I gaming is defined as traditional Indian gaming and social gaming for minimal prizes. Regulatory authority over class I gaming is vested exclusively in tribal governments.

Class II gaming is defined as the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, computer, or other technological aids are used in connection therewith) and if played in the same location as the bingo, pull tabs, punch board, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo. Class II gaming also includes non-banked card games, that is, games that are played exclusively against other players rather than against the house or a player acting as a bank.

The Act specifically excludes slot machines or electronic facsimiles of any game of chance from the definition of class II games. Tribes retain their authority to conduct, license, and regulate class II gaming so long as the state in which the Tribe is located permits such gaming for any purpose and the Tribal government adopts a gaming ordinance approved by the Commission, Tribal governments are responsible for regulating class II gaming with Commission oversight.

The definition of class III gaming is extremely broad. It includes all forms of gaming that are neither class I nor II. Games commonly played at casinos, such as slot machines, black jack, craps, and roulette, would clearly fall in the class III category, as well as wagering games and electronic facsimiles of any game of chance. Generally, class III is often referred to a casino-style gaming. As a compromise, the Act restricts Tribal authority to conduct class III gaming.

Before a Tribe may lawfully conduct class III gaming, the following conditions must be met: (1) The Particular form of class III gaming that the Tribe wants to conduct must be permitted in the state in which the tribe is located; (2) The Tribe and the state must have negotiated a compact that has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary must have approved regulatory procedures; and (3) The Tribe must have adopted a Tribal gaming ordinance that has been approved by the Chairman of the Commission.

The regulatory scheme for class III gaming is more complex than a casual reading of the statute might suggest. Although Congress clearly intended regulatory issues to be addressed in Tribal State compacts, it left a number of key function in federal hands, including approval authority over compacts, management contracts, and Tribal gaming ordinances.

Congress also vested the Commission with broad authority to issue regulations in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission plays a key role in the regulation of class II and III gaming.

For the full text of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, click here.