gufo_della_nonna (il_mio_gufo) wrote in nativeamerica,
gufo_della_nonna
il_mio_gufo
nativeamerica

Taking Money from the Casinos



This has been on my mind for quite some time now. So this is my attempt to get it out already :)

On Super Tuesday (02/05/08/) Californians lined up at their poll stations to cast their vote for the presidential candidate of their choice. That same day, they were called to cast a 'yes' or a 'no' for or against Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97. Here, why don't I type them out so you all can see what I am referring to. Good idea.

94: REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT

"Yes" Vote approves, and "No" Vote rejects, a law that ratifies an amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians. Fiscal Impact: Net increase in annual state revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.

95: REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT

"Yes" Vote approves, and "No" Vote rejects, a law that ratifies an amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Fiscal Impact: Net increase in annual state revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.

96: REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT

"Yes" Vote approves, and "No" Vote rejects, a law that ratifies an amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. Fiscal Impact: Net increase in annual state revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.

97: REFERENDUM ON AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT

"Yes" Vote approves, and "No" Vote rejects, a law that ratifies an amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Fiscal Impact: Net increase in annual state revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.


Alright . . . that is exactly how the ballots read. In a brief summary, a 'yes' vote for any of these measures allows that a portion of the revenues generated by the casinos be paid to the State of California. All this in attempt to clean up our budget deficit.

My question is this:

Should it be legal and Is it legal to tax any type of activity occurring on tribal lands?? If any given tribe would like to make a donation to the State of California then by all means go ahead....but should the state be allowed to mandate a payment????

I am soooooooo confused. What are the legal premises for these measures being able to make it to the ballot? Any clues?? I am so dang curious to understand this. Even some law student colleagues of mine are puzzled on this. What are your thoughts? Should this be legal? If so, on what grounds?

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 2 comments