California Proposition 70 (2004)

From Ballotpedia

California Proposition 70, also known as the Tribal Gaming Compacts Amendment, was on the November 2, 2004 election ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.

• Yes: 2,763,800 (23.7%)
• No: 8,880,110 (76.3%)

Proposition 70 would have required the Governor of California to execute a gaming compact on request of any federally recognized Indian tribe, with no limits on the number of machines, facilities or types of games offered.

The campaigns for and against Proposition 70 were to a considerable extent run simultaneously with the campaigns for and against Proposition 68.

Text of the proposal

The official ballot summary said:

• Upon request by federally-recognized Indian tribe, Governor must execute renewable 99-year gaming compact.
• Grants exclusive tribal gaming rights; no limits on number of machines, facilities, types of games on Indian land.
• Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income, based on prevailing state corporate tax rate, to state fund.
• Contributions cease if non-tribal casino-type gaming is permitted.
• Contributions are in lieu of any other fees, taxes, levies.
• Requires off-reservation impact assessments, public notice/comment opportunities before significant expansion or construction of gaming facilities.

Fiscal impact estimate

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 70. That estimate was:

• Unknown effect on payments to the state from Indian tribes. The potential increase or decrease in these payments could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred million dollars annually.
• Likely reduction in tribal payments to local governments, potentially totaling in the millions of dollars annually.

Campaign spending

The "Yes on 70" campaign spent about $30 million.^[1] One small committee spent about $75,000 specifically to defeat Proposition 70, but the bulk of the funds to defeat Proposition 70 were spent in a coordinated campaign by the "No on 68" campaign, where over $30 million was spent.^[2]

Donors to "Yes on 70" included:

• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians: $13.7 million
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians: $11 million
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians: $3.5 million^[3]

See also

• California 2004 ballot propositions

External links

• Official Voter Guide to Proposition 70
• LAO analysis of Proposition 70
• November 2004 election results from the California Secretary of State
• Guide to Proposition 70 from the California Voter Foundation
• Analysis of Propositions 68 & 70 from the Institute of Governmental Studies
• Archived copy of the "Yes on 70" campaign website

	v • d • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Ballot Measures	History of I&R | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |
Ballot measures by year	1912 • 1914 • 1916 • 1920 • 1922 • 1978 • 1980 • 1982 • 1984 • 1986 • 1988 • 1990 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1996 • 1998 • 2000 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2006 (local) • 2007 • 2008 • 2008 (local) • 2009 • 2009 (local) • 2010
Government	California State Constitution | Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | State assembly | State senate |
Elections	Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections |
Judiciary	California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |
Transparency Topics	Public Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
Divisions	State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of township websites | Evaluation of school district websites |